The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Robert Redford's Quiz Show
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL 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 once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Robert Redford’s 1994 film Quiz Show tells the story of the Twenty-One game show scandal of the late 1950s. Featuring a superbly literate and psychologically subtle script and outstanding performances by Ralph Fiennes, Paul Scofield, John Turturro, and Rob Morrow, Quiz Show dramatizes important moral issues and explores the corrupting force of television in American life.

Quiz Show was a critical success but a box office bomb. But to me, the most remarkable thing about Quiz Show is that it was ever made at all. For Quiz Show is not just a nostalgic portrayal of the self-confident, normatively white America of the 1950s, it is also a remarkably acute meditation on the role that television played in the fall of America’s WASP elite and the rise of today’s Jewish hegemony.

There are four principal Jewish characters in Quiz Show. Dick Goodwin (played by Rob Morrow) is an ambitious Harvard-educated lawyer whose memoir, Remembering America: A Voice from the Sixties, is the basis of the story. Herb Stempel (played by John Turturro) is a cringy, high-strung quasi-autistic savant from Queens who became famous in his six-week winning streak on the quiz show Twenty-One, produced by Dan Enright (born Ehrenreich) and Albert Freedman. It turned out that the producers of Twenty-One rigged the show because champions with winning streaks attracted larger audiences and sold more Geritol.

When Stempel’s ratings plateaued, Martin Rittenholm from Geritol (Martin Scorsese in a wonderful minor role) asked for a new champion.

Enter Charles Van Doren (played by Ralph Fiennes), the scion of America’s white intellectual elite. Van Doren was the son of Pulitzer Prize-winning poet, critic, and Columbia professor Mark Van Doren and novelist Dorothy Van Doren. He was a nephew of Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer Carl Van Doren. Charles Van Doren earned a B.A. in Liberal Arts from St. John’s College in Annapolis, an M.A. in astrophysics from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in English, also from Columbia. He also studied at Cambridge. At the time of the film, he was teaching English literature at Columbia.

The film offers an affectionate portrayal of Charles Van Doren’s world. At a birthday party for his father Mark Van Doren (wonderfully played by Paul Scofield), the elder and younger Van Dorens carry on their conversation in quotes from Shakespeare and banter with Thomas Merton and Edmund “Bunny” Wilson.

When Van Doren tries out for another Enright and Freedman quiz show, Tic-Tac-Dough, they steer him toward Twenty-One. When they propose giving him the answers, he rejects it as intellectually dishonest. But when Van Doren is on live TV, they give him a question that he had correctly answered in the tryouts. Stempel, meanwhile, takes a dive by giving the wrong answer to an easy question, and Van Doren is crowned the new champion. Van Doren objects to being, in effect, tricked into taking part in a rigged game, but Enright and Freedman salve his conscience by telling him that he is promoting higher educational standards to American schoolchildren. The money also helps.

Enright and Freedman are a pair of oily operators, but giving people answers was the least of their sins. After all, they had to give contestants the answers only because the questions were incredibly difficult. But seeing people answer difficult questions actually encouraged viewers to take education more seriously. Furthermore, as the suave gentleman from Geritol, Martin Scorsese, points out, if the quiz shows can’t manage the rise and fall of champions by feeding them answers or demanding they take falls, they can accomplish the same effect by simply making the questions easier, i.e., by lowering standards—with its predictable effect on the public mind—which is exactly what they did. Besides, nobody believes that in a magic act, the lady is actually sawed in two. The point is to entertain. And Twenty-One was not just entertaining, it was edifying.

Unfortunately, when Enright and Freedman made Herb Stempel take a dive, the unstoppable force of Jewish neuroticism crashed into the immovable object of Jewish unscrupulousness, and the result was a huge explosion. The highly neurotic Stempel was humiliated by being forced to fail on an easy question. He also lost his winnings in a bookie’s “investment” scheme. Stempel threatened to expose Enright unless he got him back on TV. Enright tried to placate him and string him along with empty promises, carefully laying the foundation for discrediting him as insane by taping his rants and offering him free visits to a psychiatrist. Finally rejected, a vengeful Stempel went to a District Attorney, who convened a grand jury. But Enright managed to get the finding sealed.

The whole thing would have blown over rather than up were it not for the catalyzing agent of Jewish ambition, in the form of Dick Goodwin, trying to work his way out of a minor staff position in the House Committee for Legislative Oversight. Goodwin went to New York and eventually unraveled Enright and Freedman’s whole scheme. A congressional hearing was called. Stempel finally returned to the spotlight he so craved and told his story. The president of NBC and the head of Geritol denied any knowledge of the fix and blamed Enright and Freedman. Enright and Freedman accepted full responsibility. Charles Van Doren, however, out of a typically white surfeit of conscience, gave an eloquent confession.

None of the people who lied faced any negative consequences. NBC and Geritol continued to rack up millions. Enright merely laid low for a few years then returned to the game show business where he too made millions. Freedman ended up working for Penthouse magazine.

Goodwin, who died in 2018, went on to be a speechwriter and an aide to presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and also to senator Robert Kennedy. (His second wife, Doris Kearns Goodwin, is a presidential biographer plagued with charges of plagiarism.) Stempel went to college and ended up working for the New York Transportation Department. He still lives in Queens.

Charles Van Doren was the only person in the whole sordid affair to face negative consequences for his testimony, solely because he told the truth. After his run on Twenty-One, NBC had hired him for The Today Show. After his testimony, he was fired and forced to resign from his instructorship at Columbia. When caught in a perfect storm of Jewish unscrupulousness, neurosis, and ambition, his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing. Thus the story of Charles Van Doren can be seen as the epitome of the fall of the WASP ruling class and the rise of our hostile Jewish elite.

Quiz Show is surprisingly frank about Jewish ethnic hostility toward founding stock Americans. Dick Goodwin is portrayed as a vulgar arriviste. In the opening scene, he chomps a cigar while being shown an expensive Cadillac by an unctuous salesman. Later, when Charles Van Doren and his father treat him to lunch at the Athenaeum Club, his table manners are atrocious. He also remarks on the absence of Jews at the club. He bristles when people call him Mr. Goldwyn rather than Mr. Goodwin. Yet, for all that, he has a genuine admiration for the intellect, manners, and lifestyle of the Van Dorens—to the point that his shrewish Jewish first wife accuses him of being “the Uncle Tom of the Jews.”

Stempel has unalloyed hostility to Van Doren, referring to him as an “uncircumcised prick.” When Stempel realizes Goodwin is Jewish (as if there could have been any doubt), he asks how a guy like him could have gotten into Harvard. (Now we wonder how the descendants of the people who founded Harvard can get into Harvard.)

I don’t know how closely the movie’s script hews to Goodwin’s book, but I imagine such sentiments only made it into the script as part of a larger Jewish triumphalist narrative. If so, it strikes me as a miscalculation, because I can’t imagine that such sentiments sit well with normal white moviegoers. This is why I include Quiz Show in my list of Goebbels Award winners, namely mainstream Hollywood films that Joseph Goebbels would have released without changing a frame.

I highly recommend Quiz Show to racially conscious whites. It is a beautifully realized portrait of the America that was ours, and it contains a surprising amount of truth about how we allowed it to be taken away from us, and by whom.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters, History • Tags: Jews, Movies, WASPs 
Hide 205 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Van Doren’s story which he wrote for the New Yorker in 2008:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/28/all-the-answers/amp

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @eah
  2. You say that the anti-white sentiments don’t sit well with white moviegoers.

    Well…..that would be true if white moviegoers had any inkling, any clue whatsoever.

    I can sit and watch TV with normie friends, and I point out things that are anti-white, and they say,
    “Oh, c’mon. It’s just a movie. It’s just entertainment.”

    They have no idea that stories are a teaching tool, a method of indoctrination.

  3. Amazing analysis. I watched this movie at least a decade ago, when I was young(er) and naive and had no idea who was really running the world. Didn’t even know then all those people running the quiz show were Jews, but now it all makes sense. I think I might have to rewatch this.

    Coincidentally or otherwise, Ralph Fiennes is one of the people in Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book, along with Prince Andrew. Of course, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty of sex with underage girls, people like Barbara Walters were in it too. But it does mean that in real life, he runs with the Jews.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Anonymous
  4. Wouldn’t it be nicer to call it the Kevin MacDonald or Joseph Sobran Award?

    Goebbels wasn’t just a critic of Jewish power but a psycho.

  5. Goodwin’s book, Remembering The Sixties, is a good read and a valuable witness to the times. I haven’t seen the movie but my impression of him as author is not fairly or adequately represented by his character in the movie as described here. The book, in any case, is worth reading if you are interested in its subject.

  6. @Robert Dolan

    Given how vulgar modern society has become, the moral that many will take is that Van Doren was a chump, but it’s just as well that he did to himself because he exemplified white privilege. Had they retconned him confessing that privilege then he would be a modern redeemed antihero.

  7. Dan Hayes says:
    @Yves Vannes

    Yves Vannes:

    I had heard that Mortimer Adler was the only one who would give Van Doren a job. This was also covered in the New Yorker article.

    • Replies: @Yves Vannes
  8. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor

    How was Goebbels “a psycho”?

  9. chrimony says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Yep, I saw this as a young adult and didn’t even remember there was a Jewish element to this movie. I remember admiring the protagonist seeking to uncover the scheme (though wondering what authority he actually had investigating this — was it even a crime?), disliking the rich Van Doren, and sympathizing with Stempel. The only Jews I really despised were the show runners, and I didn’t even remember them as Jewish thinking back on this movie. I really liked the movie, though, at the time.

    Black Pilled has some good videos going over (((Hollywood))) propaganda in films. Seeing old movies with new eyes.

  10. @Tired of Not Winning

    Of course, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty of sex with underage girls, people like Barbara Walters were in it too.

    Hm….makes a man think…..

  11. eah says:
    @Robert Dolan

    You can’t get much more “anti-white” than ‘Django Unchained’, which was (at least in part) marketed using the lines ‘Kill white people and get paid for it? — What’s not to like?’ — it was a box office success.

    I think ‘Twelve Years a Slave’ was also largely anti-white propaganda.

    • Replies: @JumpingJoe
  12. eah says:

    An excellent article, especially its (painful for me) conclusion:

    It is a beautifully realized portrait of the America that was ours, and it contains a surprising amount of truth about how we allowed it to be taken away from us, and by whom.

    Also this:

    Charles Van Doren was the only person in the whole sordid affair to face negative consequences for his testimony, solely because he told the truth…his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing.

    It has been our undoing.

  13. eah says:
    @Yves Vannes

    Thanks for the link — it contains this re what the ‘Today Show’ was like back then:

    …the arrangement led to Garroway’s accepting me as a regular on “Today.” (Garroway, a television pioneer, was the first host—and star—of “Today.”) I was awkward at first, but before long Dave gave me a daily five-minute spot at the top of the hour in which to report on cultural and literary events; I read a great poem or two every Friday morning and talked about its author. Viewers liked this; so did Dave.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Yves Vannes
  14. Didn’t watch the movie. I like Morrow as Fleischman character from magnificent & very underrated TV series Northern Exposure; Redford , as a director- I have not formed an opinion. Haven’t seen much of his movies but from what I’ve seen, he generally failed to deliver. Always close, but never bulls eye.

    On the other hand, his work in independent cinema cannot be overpraised.

  15. Dick Goodwin made his bones with the game-show scandals, but he was one of two. The other was Chip Howze, an upper-class WASP who was good-looking and not pockmarked. You never see Chip in the popular histories. He ended up playing in a DC piano-bar.

    I thought the John Turturro depiction of poor ol’ Herbie Stempel was over the top. Herb was a fairly somber, serious guy, and just one of many who tried to expose the scandal. Turturro just did an outer-borough “ethnic” shtick.

    And why did they have two Brits playing the all-American van Dorens, for heaven’s sake? Redford didn’t have his hand on the wheel in this one.

  16. @chrimony

    The “Jewish element” to the movie was pointed out more than once by reviewers in 1994. Stempel was not a bad guy, and the business with rugulach was a bit too much. The main problem, I thought, was that the prosecution scenes focused entirely on Dick Goodwin, and Redford put Brits into roles that would have been more convincingly cast with Americans.

  17. Anonymous[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tired of Not Winning

    Ralph Fiennes brother Joseph Fiennes is remarkably Jewish looking.

    • Replies: @Tired of Not Winning
  18. Anonymous[194] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    The point is that he was a master propagandist.

    • Replies: @Wally
  19. n230099 says:

    But to me, the most remarkable thing about Quiz Show is that it was ever made at all. For Quiz Show is not just a nostalgic portrayal of the self-confident, normatively white America of the 1950s, it is also a remarkably acute meditation on the role that television played in the fall of America’s WASP elite and the rise of today’s Jewish hegemony

    Yes, that’s why people go to movies…good grief!

  20. Hans says:
    @Priss Factor

    I thought Freud was a psycho. Goebbels was, too? –

  21. Golobki says:

    Is Jeopardy rigged?

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  22. What’s your favourite quiz shOw awaRd, Mr. C?

    The David Lammy Mastermind Award. Requires Harvard Zlevel Genius!!!!

  23. escobar says:

    I thought America belonged to the Indians and you it away from them. And then the Jews, you say, took it away from you. Who’s next?

    • Replies: @eah
    , @syonredux
  24. The brief mention of Doris Kearns Goodwin missed some key elements.

    She was an aide and (secret) mistress of LBJ who later became a prominent historian at Harvard as well as prominent LBJ biographer.

    Needless to say the biography did not bother to mention their previous sexual liaison (or LBJ’s prominent role in the planning and coverup of the JFK assassination–minor details 🙁 ).

    She is a classic example of the conflict of interest/special pleading that has ruled and continues to plague so many areas of academia.

  25. ChrisZ says:

    Your analysis, Trevor, is in accord with my reaction to “Quiz Show” from 25 years ago: that its subject is the twilight of WASP dominance in America, and the rise of a replacement class of eager, ambitious “immigrant” stock. The latter are simultaneously covetous and resentful (even contemptuous) of the courtly lifestyle of the WASP elite, and obsessively seek to expose it as a lie even as they take over its precincts (Harvard, e.g.) for themselves.

    That this was largely a Jewish project is clear from the cast of characters—although to obscure that message and generalize it, the final denunciatory line (responding to Ralph Fiennes lovely elegy to the old elite) is delivered by an Armenian congressman.

    I found it curious at the time that the director Redford (surely one of the last redoubts of WASP cultural dominance) seemed utterly unaware of the above theme. In promotional interviews, he would explain that the film was about America’s “loss of innocence”—as if 1950s Americans nourished a childlike faith in the integrity of TV quiz shows that was shattered by the revelations of game-fixing.

    That ludicrous interpretation was eagerly accepted (and advanced) by the media of the time. But it was one of the first times I can recall being aware of the propaganda role of media campaigns: of the misdirection that’s deployed to hide a provocative message (in this case, of Jewish cultural triumphalism) in plain sight. In retrospect it seems to me that Redford’s association with the film was part of that message: How much sweeter it is to crow about the Jewish victory when it comes from the mouth of the greatest exemplar of the defeated WASP culture?

    • Replies: @lysias
  26. Republic says:
    @chrimony

    Black Pilled has some good videos going over (((Hollywood))) propaganda in films. Seeing old movies with new eyes.

    Yes, very true

    an example:

    Selling divorce to the West

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @anonymous
  27. “Charles Van Doren was the only person in the whole sordid affair to face negative consequences for his testimony, solely because he told the truth…his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing.”

    Okay, I was going to allow this complaint to slide. However, the gentleman’s “aryaness” had nothing to do the consequences.

    He was a well known and respected academic who came from a long line of the same, who represented what some might say is best about what the country should uphold, and emulate. He wrote non-fiction books. And at the end of the day his lent his integrity for silver, even if briefly. When confronted he about the deception he was not forthcoming. It was the kind of crisis in leadership that simply does happen today.

    Pres Nixon resigned over issues that had nothing to do with the “break-in”, something he knew nothing about. Pres. Reagan, at least made the offer of an apology for Iran-Contra.

    Pres. Bill Clinton, did neither. And women applauded. Women who represented as virtuous and honest . . . The scales of justice are held by a women’s image. The same women who scream about old angry white guys are the same women who cheered that anger to enslave and sweep the country clean of others as they moved west, are symbolized by the woman of justice. Today we have parties celebrating the divorce and murdering children in the womb. If anything, the very values that people like the author and more readers here than even god can count claim are innate symbols of superior nature are cast to the wayside — Whites whether jews or not in positions of great leadership and low have shown themselves less than advertised as genetically superior beings of moral superior standing. I am curious of all those who got Iraq completely wrong — the number who have resigned in embarrassment —

    List the white business men and women who cheer led the matter who have resigned or even publicly expressed remorse.

    List the number of white generals who have resigned, or stood before their subordinates and spoken regret.

    List the academics who have been terminated, resigned, or stood in class in remorse about how they cheer led and supported the matter.

    The sense of guilt or shame just does not register as it once did. And whites have led the way in demolishing the same. The APA’s attack on the right and wrong, good and evil accountability —

    Churches instead of standing to toe have followed suit concerning guilt and shame as guides to behavior.

    It is not that the center won’t hold, it’s that whatever goal posts the center looked to for encouragement and sense of certainty has been dismantled by the very holders of the ideals. And that has been front and center whites. We are not talking about character assassination, where others engage in lying or manufacturing truth via heresay, rumor, gossip or setup attempts. There was no lowering the bar so as to entrap.

    Frankly, I don’t even think whites are willing to acknowledge their collective embarassment on this ethos. Instead the dominant culture engages in justifying the behavior, changing the subject or with counter accusations.

    Let’s count crime stats of blacks . . .
    Let’s import Mexicans, Indians . . .
    Let’s point to all this politically correct voting —
    Let’s ignore the 200+ years of whites voting for whites based soley on whiteness
    Let’s note that blacks shouldn’t express anger when confronting abusive authority, or anything at all — if they do they deserve what they get.

    But by all means,

    Let’s avoid looking in the mirror.

    ———————————————–

    That is why that line about having the Van Doren name is so crucial. That name stood for something about integrity. It held a standard representing something noble.

    It’s not our failings, it the blatant defense of hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Hillbob
  28. nsa says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Goebbels……a psycho”.
    Favorite Goebbels quote: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Should be the motto of Homoland Security. Americans will put up with anything, including having their nut sacks groped by some $12/hour TSA low life at the airport. Keeping them safe when flying, you know.

  29. eah says:
    @escobar

    I thought America belonged to the Indians

    Since this frequently comes up: the US (“America”) arose from a civilization created in North America (a land mass) by European settlers — there was no recognizable civilization here when these European Christian settlers arrived; there were no known nation states — hence nothing was ‘stolen’ from anyone — America was created.

    A couple of dates: the dome of St Peters in Rome was finished in 1589, which is approx 20 years before the first European (English) Christian settlers landed in North America — surely these Christians knew of St Peters; perhaps many had seen an illustration of it — so I think we can forgive them for not noticing any civilization in North America, or not being too impressed by whatever signs of native American life they saw.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  30. Johann says:
    @eah

    It was nostalgic to remember “geritol” that magic potion of the corporate world which promissed something vague like making old people feel young. Like everything else in television it was fraudulent . It fit in with white coat doctors looking out from he idiotbox screen proclaiming how smoking is good for your health. We have been living in the kingdom of lies for too long and it is getting worse with so called experts telling us that there is no such thing as “male” or “female”. The Empire is rotten to the core and always has been.

  31. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @eah

    To be fair, he did have to share the stage with a chimp. I believe this was Dwight MacDonald’s definition of ‘midcult’: someone reads a poem, then on with the chimps on bicycles.

  32. I was eight years old when the quiz show scandal broke. It didn’t surprise me a bit.

    I read Richard Goodwin’s book when it was published. It was mostly panegyrics to the Kennedys.

    I saw the film in a theater, interesting for the portrait of the 50’s. The epilogue declared Goodwin “dropped out of politics after the assassination of Robert Kennedy.”

    Absolute lie. Goodwin went back to Eugene McCarthy for the run-up to the 1968 convention. He continued writing speeches for Ted Kennedy and other democrats, Ed Muskie’s 1970 election eve speech for example.

    In 1969, Goodwin hurried to Hyannis Port to help Ted Kennedy weasel out of the Mary Jo Kopechne killing. He was in the Kennedy group for the rest of his life.

    Richard Goodwin’s second wife, Doris Kearns Goodwin, was considered by the Kennedys one of their Pocket People–In other words a biographer they could control.

  33. While I agree with everything written in this fine article, I think there’s a deeper dimension to this controversy, which in some cases may not even have been known to the participants themselves. I believe the literary and academic connections of the participants are key—was the Edmund Wilson mentioned in the article THE Edmund Wilson?

    It has to do with a peculiar ritual being conducted on the poet Ezra Pound. Even before his fascist speeches during wartime(his wartime behavior I believe was a result of these circumstances), certain Jewish factions had targeted him for a ritualistic persecution, which extended to forcibly preventing publishers and editors from including him in anthologies(for royalty reasons) or critics from praising or discussing him in a positive light. Van doren and a few other figures of great stature resisted. Yvor Winters, another great wasp critic, while obeying, shot back by not praising Jewish artists, saying only “of whom less said the better.” He even mistakenly said this of figures who were not Jewish such as Samuel Daniels, I suppose based on the name. They didn’t have Wikipedia in those days. Thus he damned his own, showing the absurdity of this sort of racial politics.

    Anyhow, the aggressors started a multilevel social war on these old wasp literati, and I think this peculiar web which the younger van doren wandered into was a part of that. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that Goodwin would have brought a damaging investigation against his coethnics, especially in that day and age? There must have been some higher goal toward which they were all working. I say higher but mean transcendent, as their purposes were not lofty, but petty. Of course there were the benefits of establishing fear and control. As the author of the article points out, van doren was the only person who suffered any negative consequences from the affair, which I find doubly telling, and convincing me it was all some sort of ambush.

    Great movie though. Notice how they stole the scene in good will hunting where he comes back to a formerly empty classroom to find it bursting at the seems! Lots of people steal from quiz show.

    • Replies: @S
  34. @Priss Factor

    “Goebbels wasn’t just a critic of Jewish power but a psycho.”

    And a student of Bernays’ ,
    Just to complete the circle.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  35. @eah

    “It has been our undoing.”

    Playing the White Man is not always the best thing to do.

  36. Emslander says:

    Charles Van Doren was a poor copy of Mark, who was one of the most important teachers of an emerging American culture. A peak of American literary quality was taking place. It was based upon a purer understanding of Christianity, philosophy and psychology than had been able to develop in Western Europe. Note that Thomas Merton was a character in the movie.

    I took from the movie Charles’s willingness to grasp at a popular illusion of greatness in order to compensate for his inability to ever match the real greatness of a father.

    There was an emerging purity of thought in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s that was also snuffed out. I suppose some Jewish parallel could be seen between these two failed movements. I’m not sold on that. I always see plenty of willing corruption from gentiles in any of these evil-Jew analyses and, actually, plenty of willing corruption in myself. Sin wasn’t a Jewish invention.

  37. Wally says:
    @Anonymous

    Well duh.

    He was openly titled the Minister of Propaganda which simply meant that he advanced Germany’s interests.

    The word ‘propaganda’ didn’t have the same meaning then that is associated with it now.

    Don’t take the Zionist bait.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  38. It’s been awhile since I have seen it but I didn’t think the Van Doren family was admirable. Swank, maybe. Or slick. I think Time magazine had a story where they called Bush I a wimp and that was a man who flew airplanes in the Navy during the war. I cannot imagine what that writer was thinking.

    John Wayne made movies during the war and Time magazine wouldn’t call him a wimp in a million years.

    (I googled it and it was Newsweek, not Time. https://www.newsweek.com/bush-battles-wimp-factor-207008)

  39. Marcus says:

    his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing.

    You wonder why no one takes you people seriously…

  40. S says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    Great movie though. Notice how they stole the scene in good will hunting where he comes back to a formerly empty classroom to find it bursting at the seems! Lots of people steal from quiz show.

    A bit like how the Wolf of Wallstreet shamelessly stole the marching band scene from Citizen Kane.

    • Replies: @Yapius the 2nd
  41. @eah

    Idiot. There was plenty civilization in the Americas. If not for disease, there would be no US. The Europeans would have been stopped at the coast. You know nothing.

  42. @S

    Yeah, but that’s homage, tribute, tradition. To steal a joke from an obscure movie only a year or so previously is different. The awards ceremony at the end of Star Wars is from Riefenstahl triumph of the Will, and that too is in the first case.

    • Replies: @S
  43. This article has, as is the case with most Unz.com articles, lots of anti-Semitic cliches around it. But here, much of these is true. Just listen to Gottfried’s description of intellectual climate of the 50s, how Jews were loathing WASPs for supposed lack of vigor etc. It begins at 6:50 and lasts a few minutes (actually, the entire vid is good, but this segment sticks out)

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  44. CMC says:
    @eah

    Telling the truth to the proper authorities —to your fellow countrymen, was his undoing? That’s the moral to you?

    If that’s the moral to you then maybe you don’t deserve a country.

    Read the report again.

    Van Doren objects to being… tricked… but….

    But what? But nothing. He goes along with the lie. That was his undoing. Telling the truth in the end was his remaking, or salvaging.

    • Replies: @eah
    , @NoWhiteGuilt
  45. S says:
    @chrimony

    Yes, the propaganda in the movies has been around a very long time.

    A lot of the old silent films are still available despite many having been destroyed. These were feature length films sixty minutes or longer.

    I came across two randomly not too long ago, both comedies made in 1923, that had similar plots..ie Irish immigrants (left unsaid but probably Catholic) getting into relationships leading to marriage with Anglo-Saxon (likely Protestants) characters.

    The usual formula was there that the ‘immigrants’ are ‘very hard working’ doing ‘menial tasks’ and ‘even better in character’ in certain ways than the people already there that were being displaced, while at the same time poking mild fun at the new arrivals.

    Also, anyone protesting these ‘mixed’ relationships (such as in the one film the wealthy Anglo-Saxon father in regards to his daughter) is shown with much emotion to be ‘heartless and cruel’. [Though interestingly one of the two films in the end did show that after much heartache the ‘mixed’ relationship didn’t ultimately work out as there really were significant differences between these two groups.]

    Then it occurred to me the date 1923 (when the two films were made) was only a year prior to the 1924 immigration restrictions which were put in place. So, apparently, there was a media campaign to stop the restrictions by presenting ‘mass immigration’ at the time in a good light.

    Regarding the ‘mixing’ there’s also a Korean War era movie that has Mickey Rooney playing a character who does search and rescue work with a ‘Jolly Green Giant’ helicopter. He ends up getting killed by a North Korean. Before that happens they show him with his girlfriend, who sure enough, is Japanese.

    They start out with groups which are relatively close and work from there, ultimately arriving at sub-Saharan Africans. The idea being to create, as the London Times once gently put it, a new race of man which is ‘more mixed’, ‘more docile’ and ‘ which can submit to a master’.

    Accordingly my guess is in Poland, where large numbers of Ukrainians have been arriving as so called ‘cheap labor’, that there’s plenty of media there ‘celebrating’ the ‘mixing’ of Poles and Ukes.

    Should the powers that be have their way though, they certainly aren’t going to stop there.

    • Replies: @Susan
  46. Anonymous[345] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Wally

    You are a Hasbara dolt trying to make the Right look bad by endlessly yammering about the holocaust.

  47. @Bill Jones

    Goebbels was about countering lies with lies.

    We need the ministry of truth than the ministry of propaganda.

  48. eah says:
    @CMC

    You should read the New Yorker article linked in comment #1, written by Van Doren himself — you get a better overview of what happened, and how he felt about it later, and remembers feeling about it at the time — I read it only after reading and commenting here — if I had Van Doren first, perhaps I would have worded my comments differently (eg he didn’t always tell the truth) — but I think not the part that seemed to cause you to wet your panties.

    …his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing.

    You have to look at/think about it in a wider context, as I was doing at the time.

    When I wrote “It has been our undoing”, I really did mean “our” — I was thinking more of the “sense of honor” part, or what is often called pathological altruism — Whites do seem to suffer from a grand case of noblesse oblige that has led them to virtually abandon any self-identification and active self-interest, to the point where they’re allowing non-white immigration to overwhelm them in their countries.

    If that’s the moral to you then maybe you don’t deserve a country.

    That’s your word: “moral”; I didn’t use it — so I don’t deserve a country, huh? — in reply I guess I can say: go change your panties little girl.

  49. @Wally

    Anyone anti-semitic is a psycho!
    If you don’t believe me just ask a Jew.

  50. In some crazy paradoxical way, the US has proven the validity of ‘antisemitism’ by having been the least ‘antisemitic’ nation’. Anglo-made US allowed Jews to rise rapidly to the top with far less discrimination than in the Old World. This super-success has made us to see the Real Jew at Last.
    A general rule-of-thumb says the True Nature of someone or some people doesn’t emerge until he or they gain supreme power, the ultimate position to do pretty as he or they choose.
    In the movie ALL ABOUT EVE, the aspiring star conceals her true character, that is until she rises above all those who’d unwittingly helped her. Then, she betrays and shits on everyone.
    She was passive/aggressive until she amassed enough star power to be aggressive/aggressive.
    Men like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong could seem modest and moderate when they faced many obstacles on their path to power. Their true nature emerged ONLY AFTER they made it to the top. Because the Old World denied Jews the top position, Jews had to moderate their behavior so as not to rock-the-boat too much. One possible exception was the USSR where many Jewish communists rose to top positions. With great power, they unleashed an orgy of bloodbath against Christian Slavs. Still, Jewish communists had to be communists first and Jews second.
    It was in the US that Jews were able to rise to the top as Proud Jews. But even in the US prior to their ascension to the uppermost echelons of power, Jews were careful not to seem too pushy, contemptuous, and megalomaniacal.
    But now, with near-monopolistic control of finance, media, academia, and much else, Jews can now do pretty much as they please. As such, we got to See the Real Jew At Last, and it has revealed itself as most monstrous. Seeing the Real Jew At Last, we know that the so-called ‘Anti-Semites through the ages may have been more right than wrong about the Tribe.

    True nature of something emerges only when it has gained the world. What is finally bared is the lack of a soul in naked lust for power. Jeffrey Epstein is emblematic of our satanic age. He wasn’t just some lone pervert but was enabled by many powerful associates.

    Granted, one could argue that the nature of something CHANGES as it gains power. While some people may have an agenda of total-control that is kept hidden until the gain total power, others may not have had plans for total domination but got to feeling that way as more power came their way. Take Modern Japan. For centuries, Japanese were focused shutting out the rest of the world. Initially, it modernized to protect itself from Western Imperialists. But as it kept gaining in power and prestige, a new logic took over the Japanese character whereupon Japan had to have more and more, finally planning to control all of Asia.

  51. Another interesting movie that falls into the “I don’t know how it was made” is AN EDUCATION where the older Jewish lover guy turns out to be a rather unsavory character.

  52. Anon[345] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally

    You should write for Doltischer Beobachter.

    • Agree: Marcus
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Marcus
  53. S says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    Might be. You give a bit more credit to the film producer’s sometimes questionable creative attributes than I do.

    The awards ceremony at the end of Star Wars is from Riefenstahl triumph of the Will..

    Quite true.

    There’s an old 1960’s VW Beetle television ad that’s also clearly modeled upon Triumph of the Will, which considering the context, kind of surprised me.

    It shows what appears to be thousands of white coated VW production technicians standing evenly spaced at rigid attention in a formation that disappears into the distant horizon. The voice over explains that it is these lab techs who are forever working to improve the Beetle and to insure quality control.

    In this instance theft..tribute..or shtick, maybe? 😉

  54. anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @Republic

    You Better Sit Down, Kids
    Cher
    1967

  55. Marcus says:
    @obwandiyag

    No there wasn’t, just some neolithic trogs, and they got owned in almost every major war with Europeans. The Comanche put up a good fight, mainly due to horses and guns introduced by Europeans.

  56. Alfa158 says:
    @Golobki

    Doubt it, there are too many questions in each competition. The operators would have to be instantaneously changing the question on each square to make it either a hard one or easy one, depending on who is being favored, as soon as a player hits the button. The questions seem pretty equally difficult. There is however an element of chance in the game because of the three daily double questions.

  57. @Priss Factor

    Granted, one could argue that the nature of something CHANGES as it gains power. While some people may have an agenda of total-control that is kept hidden until the gain total power,

    The story of Esther is not simply an example but the template for Jews “who have an agenda of total control that is kept hidden until they gain total power.”

    It can be argued that not ALL Jews fit that model, but it is incontrovertible that the model of Esther is taught and celebrated, perhaps above all other models of Jewish behavior.

    Daniel, Esther, and the Minority Politics of the Hebrew Bible
    Benjamin R. Hertzberg
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pol.2015.17

    [MORE]

    “The Hebrew Bible records two alternative examples of how the Jews, while in exile, could approach political power as minorities. The book of Daniel teaches exiled Jews to adhere to God’s law even in the face of extreme political and personal risk. . . . In Daniel, such public obedience always has good consequences. God miraculously intervenes and rewards obedient Jews for their willingness to risk their lives to follow the law. The Jews’ political power increases; their God receives official and public respect, and the Jews secure the freedom to live as they see fit.
    . . .
    The Book of Esther provides an alternative model of minority politics, however, and raises serious questions about the wisdom of Daniel’s uncompromising approach to gentile political power. The book tells of machinations between Mordecai, who was a Jewish court official close to the Persian king Ahasuerus, and Haman, who was Mordecai’s political enemy. At one point, Mordecai provokes Haman’s ire when he refuses to follow Ahasuerus’s command and prostrate himself before Haman.27 In retaliation, Haman convinces Ahasuerus to pass a law calling for the destruction of all the Jews in Persia. . . .

    There are, nonetheless, two marked differences between the situation of Mordecai and those of Daniel and his friends. First, the stakes are much higher: Mordecai’s intransigence jeopardizes not only his own life, but also the lives of all the Jews in Persia. Second, the intervention that saves Mordecai and the Jews is not divine. . . . Intervention instead comes from Esther, who is Mordecai’s cousin and adopted daughter. . . .

    As in the Book of Daniel, Mordecai disregards a foreign ruler’s command. And like Daniel, Mordecai is rewarded in the end. But Mordecai is saved not by God’s intervention, but because Esther has the courage to hide and then to reveal her identity to Ahasuerus at a key political moment. Her ability to influence the king required that she conceal that identity up to that point. . . .

    Minorities ought not compromise their values unless the stakes are unusually high and include the elimination of a people.
    In addition, the canonization of the two texts suggests that it is important for minority groups, when developing and enforcing identity boundaries, not to exclude potential Daniels or Esthers. A group that patrols its membership for orthodoxy too vigorously may stifle the development and affiliation of people like Esther, who can advocate for the minority within the halls of political power. Similarly, a minority group that thinks only instrumentally or strategically about its relationship with majority political power may inadvertently deprive itself of the resources—for example, a widespread sense of solidarity and group pride—that a politics of conviction can supply. In short, it is important for Jews to have both models available for the community to take up.”

  58. Alfa158 says:
    @Wally

    When the Reich fell he and his wife murdered their children before committing suicide. What ever you else you think of Goebbels before that, that was a pretty psychotic act.

  59. @Anon

    How many Jewish publishers — or Hollywood producers of films that have propagandized hate to the point of genocidal war, or seduced to societal destruction — have been hanged for writing and producing what the did?

  60. @eah

    You’d like the 1965 movie The Naked Prey.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  61. @Wally

    Agree. Anonymous #194 and #345 are the equivalent of masked-dressed all in black-antifa in the street.

  62. Jake says:

    “Thus the story of Charles Van Doren can be seen as the epitome of the fall of the WASP ruling class and the rise of our hostile Jewish elite.”

    The way that this statement is true is not the way the author either believes was the case or else is trying t0 pass off.

    The Van Dorens came from IL farm country stock of Dutch ancestry. Charles’ grandfather Van Doren was a small town doctor. Being Germanic Protestant, the family naturally meshed with Yankees – true Anglo-Saxons – as soon as they had a chance.

    Charles’ father Mark and his uncle and father’s older brother Carl were both professors of literature at Columbia University. Columbia had had full professors who were Jewish since the 1890s. The Van Dorens were always very close to the NYC world of avant-garde art and scholarship. The Van Dorens were associated with Mainline Protestantism, but all of them probably were genteel agnostics after the English fashion. Both Carl and Mark Van Doren served as editor of The Nation, and Mark’s wife /Charles’ mother also worked for The Nation. Charles was well known among the younger academic set of the later 1950s NYC area as being drawn to all things and people ‘bohemian,’ and Charles would marry a Jewish woman. The Van Dorens were always big on ‘civil rights,’ apparently seeing the Negro as Numinous.

    • Replies: @Alden
  63. Maybe Cuck Wasps can be called Quizlings.

  64. @Alfa158

    I’m not trying or meaning to answer for Wally, but I do want to point out that it was Magda Goebbel’s decision, not Josef’s–who disagreed with it, as did Adolf Hitler. But since both intended to commit suicide themselves, they would not be around to protect those children, would they? So could they contravene the children’s mother who raised them to that point? Not an easy decision, as you try to portray it as, and Magda was adamant. You may disapprove of their decisions but no one was ‘psychotic’.

    Remember, thousands of families were committing group suicide at that time in Germany. Were they all psychotic? I blame it on the Allies (mainly Roosevelt’s) unyielding terms of Unconditional Surrender for Germany. THAT was psychotic.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Skeptikal
  65. @Alfa158

    Psychotic?

    How do you suppose Goebbels’ wife & children would have fared in the face of Communist troops enraged by the propaganda of his Russian counterpart, Ilya Ehrenberg?
    https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-strange-life-of-ilya-ehrenburg/

    “The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”

    Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings certainly contributed in no small measure to the orgy of murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German civilians.

    How would you have protected your wife and children in the face of that threat?

    Crimes Unspoken: The Rape of German Women at the End of the Second World War by Miriam Gebhardt
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/05/09/book-review-crimes-unspoken-the-rape-of-german-women-at-the-end-of-the-second-world-war-by-miriam-gebhardt/

    “a detailed and carefully researched account of the extent of sexual violence perpetrated by Allied forces against German women. Recent discussion has focused primarily on assaults committed by Soviet troops, but the author argues that this does not represent the whole picture.”

    • Replies: @David In TN
  66. @Carolyn Yeager

    Not an easy decision, as you try to portray it as, and Magda was adamant.

    In BELOVED, I think a slave woman killed her kid because she didn’t want it to grow up a slave.

    At MASADA, Jews took their own lives than be taken captive by the Romans.

    As for Magda, call it delayed abortion. Woman’s right to choose.

    • Replies: @nsa
    , @Carolyn Yeager
  67. For those of you attempting to make appeals for defending untruthfulness in this manner,

    one can only say for shame. I can only speak for myself, but Mr. Van Doren completely redeemed himself in view. After reading the article from the very first post, I think so even more. But his honor seems to be one of a bygone era.

    At least it seems that way.

    • Replies: @eah
  68. Alden says:
    @Jake

    Well, if the Van Dorens wrote for The Nation, and were in the civil rights movement, F ‘em. Thanks for pointing out that the Dutch are not English Anglo saxons.

    The whole Saxon Anglo revival was just part of the late 18th early 19th century Romantic Era literature and very popular novels by Sir Walter Scott and others. The Saxon kingdoms ruled parts of England about 200 years till the Danish invasions They were forgotten till Sir Walter Scott wrote Ivanhoe. Even Robin Hood wasn’t a Saxon till the early 19th century Ridiculous for the myth to become so popular in America.

    Germans Dutch Scandinavians Scots and Irish are not English Angles and Saxons. The term WASP was created in the 1920s by Jews as a pejorative slur against old stock White Americans I hate the term.

    In the Midwest the White Protestant ascendancy was primarily German. In NYC first Dutch then English and German then Irish Catholic by the time the term WASP was created. The south was more Scot German and Irish than English.

    The term is a good example of the ignorance of America of the Russian commie Jews who swarmed here 1880 to 1925 and ruled the country in less than 100 years. Bewildered by the many varieties of White goyim they invented the term.

    • Replies: @S
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    , @Hibernian
  69. nsa says:
    @Priss Factor

    “….jews took their own lives rather than be taken captive by the Romans…..”
    Who says that? Jooies all have a faggot gene so more likely the magnificent Titus and his legions tossed the white flag waving perps off a cliff while sacking Jerusalem. If only we had a Titus now……Hail Titus, we salute you across two thousand years.

  70. @eah

    Accepting non whites lack of honor has been our undoing

  71. Trevor Lynch: “Quiz Show was a critical success but a box office bomb. But to me, the most remarkable thing about Quiz Show is that it was ever made at all. ”

    That’s a bizarre take. I saw this movie for the second time recently, and my opinion didn’t change a bit. It’s boring, and that’s why it flopped at the box office. It was a critical success because it seemed, more than anything else, to send a message of just how poor and oppressed the Jews were in the 50s; and many critics being either liberal or Jews or both found that message to their liking. The stock Hollywood character of the long-suffering Jew, so unjustly discriminated against by white society, so intellectually gifted and morally pure, plays a starring role in this movie in the person of lawyer Goodwin, whose wife, in one scene towards the end, tells him that he’s “ten times the man Charles Van Doren is, with ten times the mind”. That’s what the audience was supposed to come away with. As Tarzan might put it: White society bad, against Jews! Jew smart! White man cheater, not so smart! Discrimination, no good! It was a pretty hackneyed message, even by 1994 standards.

    Seeing this film as some kind of metaphor for how the Jews defeated the white intellectual aristocracy is a tortured interpretation that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. The truth is, American whites had been in the process of surrendering their country to the forces of racial equality since the 1860s. In 1945, they had just concluded their second great war against white supremacy. By the late 1950s, during the quiz show scandal, their self-caused racial catastrophe was entering its terminal phases. Brown v. Board had already been decided by a majority white Court in favor of integrating the schools, and white President Eisenhower had already enforced it at the point of federal bayonets using white troops. As usual, hard-core anti-semites who think that everything that white people do is a result of Jewish manipulation can no doubt trace all of these things back to Jewish string pullers, while saner folks will have difficulty seeing the connection.

    • Agree: Alden
  72. eah says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    for defending untruthfulness in this manner

    It’s not entirely clear what you are trying to say — ? — but I don’t think anyone wants to defend being untruthful — ?

    Again I would suggest also reading the 2008 New Yorker article by Van Doren (see comment #1) — it seems he did not tell the truth, or at least the whole truth, when initially interviewed by the NYC DA’s office — and he admits he lied before a Grand Jury:

    Stone’s [ed: from the NYC DA’s office] grilling went on for an hour or so after that. I never admitted that I had received help… When I went before the grand jury, I wasn’t sure what I would say… And I panicked, … So I lied.

    But he had a conscience, so he told the full truth later when he read a statement before his testimony in front of Congress.

  73. S says:
    @Alden

    I see the term (WASP) as a pejorative slur as well and avoid using it, just as I attempt to avoid using any other slur.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  74. @Bardon Kaldian

    Gottfried:

    “One type of Leftist were very whiney New York Jews. They saw antisemitism in every gentlemanly WASP — ‘He really hates us.’ . . . The old WASP patrician class was totally disintegrating. They had been perhaps overly-gracious to the newcomers by letting them come and take over while they continued to commit suicide as a hegemonic ruling class in the United States. Their influence had actually declined enormously in the post-World War II period. Much of it was a kind of self- eclipsing that they engage in in this period. . . .
    When it came to the war between the Palestinians and Israel, they all became zionist nationalists.”

    I suggest another, different, dynamic: “old WASP patricians” did not “overly-graciously let the newcomers come in and take over,” they fully collaborated with zionist Jews in the destruction of their putative AngloSaxon brethren in Germany, France and even Great Britain.

    Consider: Benjamin Ginsberg writes in How the Jews Defeated Hitler:

    “The struggle against Nazi Germany and its friends also united Jews and the so-called Eastern Protestant establishment, whose members later would be colloquially known as WASPS, an acronym for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Upper-class Protestants generally disdained association with Jews and had built the “exclusive” schools, clubs, and enterprises . . . However, on the basis of education, economic interest, and often family connections, the Eastern Protestant establishment was strongly Anglophilic and found among members of the Jewish community virtually the only reliable American allies for the British cause. Indeed, Jews and upper-class Northeastern Protestants were the two groups in American society that most vehemently opposed Germany and supported England at a time when large segments of the American public, including Americans of German, Italian, Irish, and Scandinavian descent, either supported Germany, opposed England, or were against any form of American intervention in European affairs.

    Jews and member of the Eastern establishment united during the 1930s to create the Century Group, which worked vigorously for American intervention against the growing power of Nazi Germany.”

    – Zionists drew WASPs into their war against Germany, and zionists collaborated with Germans to get Jews out of Germany and into Palestine and USA, where zionists supplanted WASPs.

    In the end, WASPs — more appropriately, Frogs — were injected with zionist scorpion venom; the British empire was dismantled; of course, Germany was destroyed, by its own cousins; the zionists alone achieved their objective.

    Gottfried states that “WASPs became ardent zionists, siding with zionists against Palestinians.”
    Not surprising.
    Jews colluding with WASPs against Germany was akin to a gang ritual of blooding the conspirators. Where are WASPs to go after they have killed the Target of the Gang-leaders hate?

    Are we going to fall for it again?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  75. @obwandiyag

    If not for disease, there would be no US. The Europeans would have been stopped at the coast.

    Not so! The Amerinds were not a united people; there were dozens of tribes, many of them longstanding enemies of their neighbors. Europeans often took advantage of these tribal enmities. A great example, not in the present U.S. but in Mexico, was the way in which Cortez cultivated the friendship of tribes nearer the coast to defeat the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), who had cruelly oppressed them. The story of La Malinche is illustrative:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  76. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I think the point is that the movie presents the events with an air of triumphalism, but an objective assessment of the facts lends another interpretation. Herb was as big a cheater as van Doran was, and the producers and owners of the network were all Jewish. Van Doren was just a farm boy from the Midwest. Who is the little guy here, in reality?

    Intelligent people find the movie entertaining and informative. As I pointed out, many directors have borrowed from it over the years.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
  77. @Alden

    The term WASP was created in the 1920s by Jews as a pejorative slur against old stock White Americans (…)

    E. Digby Baltzell, whois credited with coining the term, was not a Jew. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Digby_Baltzell

    • Replies: @Alden
  78. @Priss Factor

    You’re comparing two fictional accounts to a factual one?

    With abortion, the woman lives, the child dies. To accuse Magda, who bore and raised 7 beautiful, healthy, happy children, of “delayed abortion” is a disgrace and reveals a mind mired in ignorance. She always intended suicide for herself too and, believing in an afterlife, expected them all to be together there, safe from the depradations inflicted on all NS Germans.

    You can’t hide behind a website image of a Germanic warrior maiden. I take you for a Slav who for some reason wants that not to be known. Or, if not, then just a talentless punk who wants to be seen as having done something of substance. All you punks like to attack women.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @Alden
  79. “Charles Van Doren was the only person in the whole sordid affair to face negative consequences for his testimony, solely because he told the truth.”

    This central sentence of the article is completely inaccurate. Van Doren lied before the grand jury (and received a suspended sentence for perjury) and only later told the truth before Congress. Stempel was the one who consistently told the truth throughout (albeit for obviously self-interested and vengeance-minded reasons, not due to superior moral character). I actually see a bit of a parallel between Van Doren/Stempel and Hiss/Chambers, although Chambers obviously was not Jewish.

    Van Doren was also not the only one to face negative consequences, as Enright and Barry were shut out of mainstream television for over a decade (although they did eventually worm their way back in in the 1970s).

  80. @Priss Factor

    Men like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong could seem modest and moderate when they faced many obstacles on their path to power. Their true nature emerged ONLY AFTER they made it to the top.

    When did Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong ever seem modest and moderate? You make that very common Judaized-mindset error of lumping those three together.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  81. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    hard-core anti-semites who think that everything that white people do is a result of Jewish manipulation can no doubt trace all of these things back to Jewish string pullers

    It’d be stupid to say Jews were the ONLY ones responsible for changes in the West. But they clearly tipped the balance. US gained much by a balance of left and right, of progress and reassessment, of boldness and caution. Also, the American Left and American Right got along for the most part, just like the American North and South patched up things after the Civil War.

    But Jews tipped the balance to the left, and the balance was lost. Also, Jews weren’t really leftist but using leftism to weaken white power so as to replace it with Jewish domination.

    Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense.

    Where whites failed was in their lack of honesty. Whites back then should have said, “It’s true that the US Constitution allows for equal justice regardless of race, color and creed. It’s true that there is racial discrimination against blacks. But, we whites need some kind of protection from blacks because races are really different. If we allow desegregation, more muscled blacks will beat up whites and emasculate white men into pussyboys. They will become cucky-wucks, and white women will be infected with jungle fever because women like winners and despise losers. White women will go with Negroes cuz they are more muscled and got stronger voices and bigger dongs. And white guys will become a bunch of demoralized losers dying of drug overdose as their daughters turn into tattooed whores. So, the Constitution, as noble as it is, isn’t enough in a world where racial differences are real. And this isn’t an argument for white supremacism but argument warning against black supremacism as blacks have advantage in thuggery and sports.”

    If whites had spoken thus instead of yelling ‘ni**er’ in front of cameras at blacks marching in the South, things might have been different. Of course, history vindicated all the fears I mentioned above.

    Always speak the truth.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    , @Adûnâi
  82. @Carolyn Yeager

    When did Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong ever seem modest and moderate? You make that very common Judaized-mindset error of lumping those three together.

    The reason why many in the Soviet government chose Stalin over Trotsky is the former seemed less radical. He called for national communism whereas Trotsky called for permanent communism with international thrust.

    Mao gave up on radical reforms in the 30s as he realized it alienated too many people. Also, he charmed foreign visitors as just a humble patriot and agrarian reformer than a full-blown communist. RED STAR OVER CHINA by Edgar Snow portrayed him as an unpretentious man who just wants the best for his country.

    But Stalin in power turned out to be extremely radical with collectivization. And Mao turned out to be totally nuts.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Alden
  83. @Carolyn Yeager

    With abortion, the woman lives, the child dies. To accuse Magda, who bore and raised 7 beautiful, healthy, happy children, of “delayed abortion” is a disgrace and reveals a mind mired in ignorance.

    It was tongue in cheek but maybe the point got aborted along the way.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  84. @S

    I see the term (WASP) as a pejorative slur as well and avoid using it, just as I attempt to avoid using any other slur.

    Use it but call Jews the BUGS, or Busy Urban Globalist Semites.

    • LOL: S
    • Replies: @S
  85. @SolontoCroesus

    Goebbels had plenty of time to send his children to Bavaria and safety. They would have lived well in the Federal Republic.

  86. Cortes says:

    I saw the film once and thought it sensational.

    It opened my eyes to the media. So well done all involved.

    The folks I watched it with thought the film poor.

  87. utu says:

    The persona of Herb Stempel was created by the producers. It was all fake.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/07/28/all-the-answers
    Each week, Stempel had been told what to do: how many points to choose, how to deliver his answers. He was to pat his brow (it was hot in those glass booths) but not rub it, to avoid smearing his makeup. In addition, he was instructed to get a Marines-type “whitewall” haircut, to wear an ill-fitting suit (it had belonged to his deceased father-in-law), and to describe himself as a penurious student at City College. In fact, he was a Marines veteran married to a woman of some means who once appeared on the set wearing a Persian-lamb coat and was quickly spirited away so that she wouldn’t blow his cover.

    Stempel was also told to wear a six-dollar wristwatch that “ticked away like an alarm clock,” as he later testified, and was audible when he stood sweating in the booth, earphones supposedly damping all outside sound. Once, he wore a new suit and had let his hair grow out, for which he was severely chastised by Enright. As Enright apparently believed, a successful game show needed two distinct personalities, one unsympathetic and unattractive, the other the opposite.

    The same was true with Van Doren. His persona was also created but he did not know it because he fell for it. He was a pretentious pompous ass from a family who just made it in the second generation because his father was a professor at Columbia. There was no money there and their intellectual accomplishments did not have long lineage. So Van Doren was eager to play the intellectual WASP because he was just as aspiring and climbing in real life as Stempel’s fake persona. It is likely that Stempels’ was more aware of the circumstance and what was going on while Van Doren ate it all up.

    So the question is was it a set up from the beginning and was Van Doren slated for the big downfall and was Stempel slated for the role of a poor Jew who was robbed of what he earned on the account of his genius and was robbed by the discriminatory and prejudiced system run by WASPs but was rev indicated in the end ?

  88. “It’s not entirely clear what you are trying to say — ? — but I don’t think anyone wants to defend being untruthful — ?”

    Here’s my take away from the original reference. Had Mr. Van Doren maintained his original position that a there was no “cheating” (not really the term I want – but makes the point.) he could have blissfully carried on and reaped a number of benefits. But instead what is claimed that his “aryan” desire to be forthright tripped him up. And it is further suggested that “aryans” are forever being honorable and are repeatedly getting punished for the same. And the virtue of honor is something that should be shunned for survival’s sake. Hence all the bemoaning.

    Consider this, had Mr. Van Doren operated on his first inclination he would have rejected the offer because on it face he knew it was a dodge, and a con. Had he responded as he understood one should respond when asked to participate in the deception for money, power, or even the “greater good” he would not have been involved. And he himself might have in passing in a class lecture referenced the TV game show scheme as fraudulent as part of a lesson explicating some literary work. So it was not his appeal to honor that tripped him up. Quite the opposite.

    Now my standing is that these tests are upon us as routine. They crop up, quite unexpectantly and beyond money, the greatest temptation for some of us is our vanity — to be affirmed as having value. I make no grandiose claims about being above such temptations —

    So the arguments here that white men are forever damaging themselves by being honest requires some inspection. As does the notion that honor in this regard is uniquely white or innate in “aryan” skin or blood.
    ——————————-

    I think I noted I had read the article.

  89. @Anonymous

    They are all Jews. Everyone in Hollywood, Wall Street, SV, DC, media, arts, entertainment, academia, judiciary, publishing, talent agencies, real estate…basically everyone who is rich, famous, successful or influential in US & UK is either a Jew or is so busy sucking up or kowtowing to them they might as well be one.

  90. @JumpingJoe

    You’d like the 1965 movie The Naked Prey.

    I don’t know about that guy, but it’s been one of my favorite movies since I stumbled across it by accident in about 1995.

  91. Marcus says:
    @Anon

    Hitl0r would be ashamed of effete modern neo-Nazis like Waldorf

  92. S says:
    @Priss Factor

    Use it but call Jews the BUGS, or Busy Urban Globalist Semites.

    Always got to be the smart aleck, eh, Prissy? 😉

  93. Skeptikal says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Absolutely true.
    The same dynamic occurred with Pizarro in Peru. The Inca empire was divided—two brothers were vying for power—I can’t recall all the details. Then Pizarro showed up, and one faction thought to use Pizarro and his troops to gain power over the other. Big oversimplification, but it is a fascinating story and extremely well told by John K. Thornton, A Cultural History of the Atlantic World.

    This is one of the best, most readable, books I have ever read. Thornton’s approach is to tel the whole story: what was going on politically in all of the regions that contributed to the total history of the Atlantic world more or less from the late 15th century to ca. 1804.
    E.g.,
    Why did so many of the conquistadors and their troops come from one particualr region of Spain, and one particular group of the nobility?
    what socioeconomic changes (namely, breakdown of feudalism) affect dynamics between European powers, their need to pay mercenaries, hence the drive to find precious metals?
    What was going on politically in different regions of West Africa when the Portuguese first started nosing around?
    What was the situation in Mexico . . . What in Peru . . . What in North America . . . you get the idea.
    The Americas were not a political and cultural blank slate. It is a sign of the deep cultural bias of many historians and regular people that their default assumption is that all of the relevant political actors are the Europeans.

    Which is kind of funny because in numerous science fiction movies featuring the landing of extraterristrials, the response of the EArthlings invariably features some political conflict that determins who is friend and who is potential foe of the Extras.

    As for “no culture in the Americas,” it is probably a waste of time to try to help all the ignoramuses one encounters, even just those here at UR.
    Just one e.g.:
    No one has yet AFAIK figured out how the Incas managed to construct their walls, three-dimensional stone jigsaw puzzles that have no mortar:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=Inca+walls&tbm=isch&source=hp&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMv_fNgqnjAhWnV98KHdORCrcQsAR6BAgDEAE&biw=865&bih=411

    Just one tiny example.

    BTW, every once in a while UR forgets who I am plus my email and prompts me to enter this again . . . ???

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @eah
  94. Skeptikal says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Remember, thousands of families were committing group suicide at that time in Germany. ”

    “Remember”????: Documentation please.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  95. Skeptikal says:
    @Skeptikal

    Reviews at Amazon echo my assessment of this book:
    Really, a great and hugely educational read. Thornton developed the theses presented in teh book over years of teaching a certain seminar at Boston U.

  96. ” The Naked Prey”

    Good movie —–

    speaking of honor

  97. “founding stock Americans”

    Like those who stole the American continent from the natives by genocide?

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Alden
    , @syonredux
  98. As to the article,

    I am going to lean in the direction of Director/actor/producer Mr Clint Eastwood, (paraphrasing)

    “Hollywood doesn’t care who you are as long and you can generate profits for them.”

    I am not 100% sure that is accurate, but I suspect turning a dime into a dollar does a long way to ameliorating differences.

    Director/producer/writer Mr. Robert Altman says of his “The Player” that its much worse than that in real experience – speaking of Hollywood.

    And there’s a very interesting retrospective about Mr. Rod Serling his comments about TV and Hollywood — “Twilight Zone” in spades.

  99. Business and Morals, a big American Theme.

    QUIZ SHOW rode on the coattails of the successful BROADCAST NEWS where a handsome and charming but rather dim Wasp goy is favored over the smarter but less attractive Jewish guy played by Albert Brooks. I think it was a modest hit because of its humor. BROADCAST NEWS warns of the dumbing down of American media but, ironically, it is a dumbed down morality tale. Still, it doesn’t have clear heroes and villains. The goy gets the job but doesn’t get the girl who has some scruples. These days, does ANYONE have principles in the media? I think not.

    Another twist on QUIZ SHOW is SOCIAL NETWORK where privileged and handsome Wasps are shown playing jock and rowing their boats while Zuckerberg the smart and driven Jew is shown to do ALL the real work.

    Goy and Jew archetypes often butt heads. Usually, the goy comes across as more likable on the outside whereas the Jew has more smarts(and even integrity) on the inside. But in some cases, the goy and Jew make common cause with their complementary talents. CITY SLICKERS has smart Jews befriending a big tough cowboy. But the Jewish brain and goy muscle thing can be seen in other movies. CASINO has a smart Jew who works with tough greaser(Pesci). Though Ratso Rizzo is Itailan-American, his portrayal by Hoffman makes the duo in MIDNIGHT COWBOY almost like a Jewish-Goy partnership. FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY is also about Wasp and Jew as muscle and mind. CARLITO’S WAY has a tough goy(a Rican) partnered with a smart Jew. However, CARLITO is one movie where the Jewish character is clearly worse than the goy. But Kleinfeld is played so brilliantly by Sean Penn that you can’t help rooting for him on some level. EYES WIDE SHUT is also a movie where the Jewish guy, though smarter, is much worse than the goy protagonist.

    I wonder if Business Fiction or Biz-Fiction can become a lucrative genre like science fiction or mystery. While plenty of novels have been written about the business world, it hasn’t been established like a genre like sci-fi, mystery, or horror.

    But suppose a Biz-Fic magazine could take off. Suppose there could be Biz-Fic conventions. As money is the only thing that matters, it might really be successful. And those who worked in the business world could write about their experiences through fiction.
    Ayn Rand sold millions of books. So, why not turn Biz-Fic into a full-blown genre like sci-fi?

    https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/business/trends-and-insights/articles/forget-business-books-why-reading-fiction-is-better-for-your-business/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/novels-that-teach-you-about-business-2015-6

    • Replies: @Marcus
  100. @David In TN

    Most Nazi leaders had children who lived inconspicuously and unbothered in West Germany and elsewhere. Some claimed to be ashamed of their fathers’ crimes, but others remained defiant. But these people are not really interested in the facts.

    • Agree: eah
    • Replies: @eah
  101. syonredux says:
    @escobar

    I thought America belonged to the Indians and you it away from them.

    Before we arrived, there was no America to take.

  102. @David In TN

    See my comment #65. It is not for you to say what “living well” means to other people.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  103. @chrimony

    “ The only Jews I really despised were the show runners”…
    The term “show runner”, which I find slightly grating, seems to be a fairly recent invention. In the past they were called executive producers.

  104. Priss Factor: “Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense.

    Where whites failed was in their lack of honesty.”

    I agree about the lack of honesty, but not with your reasoning. The US Constitution was the way it was because whites wanted it that way; specifically, they amended it at great cost in blood and treasure so that negroes could be included as full citizens and be given the vote. American Christianity in the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s gave rise to both abolitionism and feminism, and at the time of the Civil War, America was full of Christian fanatics. Everything that has happened since then on the civil rights front is merely putting into practice principles that were enunciated and codified into law in the nineteenth century.

    It’s not too surprising that Christianity would give rise to a culture of lies. Lack of honesty about the realities of life, especially sex and race, is the most outstanding characteristic of the Christian religion, which began with the outrageous lie that people can come back from the dead. As a great man once observed: “The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. ”

    Because of this, I think Jews didn’t “tip the balance”, as you put it, because there never was any balance. America was founded on revolutionary principles derived from Christianity, so it has always been at war with reality.

  105. @Priss Factor

    What was the point, please? I still don’t get it.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  106. Marcus says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Yes, right of conquest. If you think that’s wrong then you should leave India since your existence there is the result of Muslim savages raping and pillaging their way through the subcontinent. At least Europeans brought civilization where they went, Mooslimsy brought misery and retardation.

  107. @EliteCommInc.

    Right, the statement that a fraudster, who knew he was getting into a fraud and even according to the article was sweetened by offers of money, was “honourable” would be puerile on any other website. On Unz it is merely a reflection of this site’s core raison d’etre, racism.

  108. @Marcus

    Those “Muslim savages” actually became Indians who defended India against Afghan and Persian and Mongol invasions. As for whites bringing “civilisation”? Give me a break. The only thing whites ever brought were genocide and exploitation. Including to India.

    • LOL: eah
    • Replies: @Marcus
  109. Marcus says:
    @Priss Factor

    Another twist on QUIZ SHOW is SOCIAL NETWORK where privileged and handsome Wasps are shown playing jock and rowing their boats while Zuckerberg the smart and driven Jew is shown to do ALL the real work.

    Zuck still comes out looking like a huge asshole, though perhaps still not as much as he should’ve based on the source matter

  110. Alden says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    So you believe Wikipedia. Nuff said

  111. Alden says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Magda and her children were beautiful. Thus site should be renamed RHWM.com

    Repressed Homosexual Women Haters.com

    The thousands of posts that all women are obese tattooed ugly badly dressed slobs plus the recent article by jealous Jew Ilana Mercer where all the woman less old codgers attacked Ivanka Trump for being a pretty woman, belong in the chapters about women hating repressed homosexuals in a 1950s psychiatry journal.

  112. Alden says:
    @Priss Factor

    Stalin wasn’t chosen by anyone. He took over Russia by getting rid of Trotsky and everyone else who was in his way.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  113. Alden says:
    @Priss Factor

    Oh for Gods sakes. Edgar Snow was a communist propagandist. He was not a neutral historian or biographer. You believe Edgar Snow and Red Star. Moron

  114. I didn’t see the movie but I disagree with the article’s point that Jews dethroned WASPS because they were less moral, more willing to lie and cheat. WASPS lie and cheat as well as anyone. Jews did overthrow the WASPS and now rule the roost because, as Prof. Kevin MacDonald illustrates in his great trilogy on the Jews, Jews are tribal and Gentiles are not. Jews help each other, they hire each other, they lie for each other, they promote each other, they protect each other, their attitude is us against them. Since WASPS are not this way, they didn’t stand a chance.

    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Miro23
  115. Alden says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Yup, that’s me and proud of it.

    They’re not all dead so it wasn’t genocide.

    We came we saw we conquered

    If you’re a White or black American you benefitted from the conquest my ancestors made. We Americans should have closed the borders in 1785 so we wouldn’t have to listen to all you newcomers complaining.

    FYI, Europeans arrived on the Atlantic coast during the ice age 20,000 years ago. They were wiped out by the Asian arrivals 10,000 years later who became the American Indians.

    So we European Whites were the first humans in America. Sometimes the historical ignorance displayed here is astonishing.

  116. @Skeptikal

    Three distinct periods of suicides have been identified between January and May 1945 when thousands of German people took their own lives.
    German psychiatrist Erich Menninger-Lerchenthal noted the existence of “organised mass suicide on a large scale which had previously not occurred in the history of Europe […] there are suicides which do not have anything to do with mental illness or some moral and intellectual deviance …
    There were also a large number of family suicides or murder-suicides where mothers and fathers killed themselves and their children. More than 7,000 suicides were reported in Berlin in 1945, but it is thought that many suicides went unreported due to the chaos of the post-war period. (Above from Christian Goeschel (2009). Suicide in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press)

    In April 1945, at least 1,000 Germans killed themselves and others within 72 hours as the Red Army neared the East German town of Demmin. In Berlin alone more than 7,000 suicides were reported in 1945, most of them were women. https://timeline.com/demmin-nazi-mass-suicide-44c6caf76727

    Alfred Rosenberg, Memoirs, p.119-120. “Two days later I learned that the friend of my youth, Arno Schickedanz, had killed his wife, his eight year old daughter and himself. He was a clear-headed politician … His wife was ill and he did not want to wait for the end. […] We, on our part, had inwardly prepared ourselves for a similar fate. I had managed to get hold of a sufficient quantity of cyanide, for it went without saying that neither I nor my family would voluntarily fall into the hands of the Soviets. My pleas that they go to the Seehof (lake estate) were emphatically rejected by both Hedwig and Irene. They wanted to share my fate, no matter what happened.” […] [Rosenberg’s wife and daughter finally agree to settle in a small house (2 rooms) in the country, but shortly thereafter (after the Fuhrer’s death) “they were driven out of the village – they were attracting the bombers!” This happened a second time in a deaconess’s home for the aged in Gluecksburg. -page 120]

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @Cyrano
    , @Anonymous
  117. Anounder says:
    @Priss Factor

    You’re an obvious cuck/Negrophile. Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness and lose to other races in tests of sheer muscle power.

    Mestizos and Orientals are the ones who threaten Whites from miscegenation. This is shown from ratings and interracial births.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Marcus
  118. syonredux says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Old World diseases were responsible for the overwhelming majority of Amerind deaths. In many cases, the diseases preceded English settlement.For example, the coastal tribes of Massachusetts were decimated by disease before the Pilgrims arrived in 1620.

  119. Dummy, his book was widely read, and many in US State Department had a positive view of Mao.

  120. @Alden

    Stalin wasn’t chosen by anyone.

    Many of those later killed by Stalin had sided with him against Trotsky who seemed too radical and strident.

  121. eah says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    So the arguments here that white men are forever damaging themselves by being honest requires some inspection.

    As I said in comment #48, you should look at this in a wider context: pathological altruism and a kind of noblesse oblige in Whites vis-a-vis non-whites — there can be no question that Whites are damaging themselves by allowing mass immigration to make them minorities in their own countries, and these characteristics of Whites generally are as good an explanation as any for why this is happening — they are a starting point anyway.

    You should really use the REPLY function.

  122. eah says:
    @Skeptikal

    BTW, every once in a while UR forgets who I am plus my email and prompts me to enter this again . . . ???

    Happens to me as well — I’ve even had my comment appear with someone else’s moniker: I must have clicked “Publish Comment” without noticing the info was wrong (for some reason — ?) — verify the info first (name, email), and if correct check “Update My Information” before clicking “Publish Comment”.

    Thanks for the book reference.

  123. Duke84 says:

    The car in the beginning of the movie was a Chrysler 300 not a Cadillac.

  124. Skeptikal says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    To help readers source Yeager’s contentions (some of them quote wiki verbatim):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicides_in_1945_Nazi_Germany

    Not sure that Life mag, writing in 1945, is a reliable source concerning suicide and its motivations.
    Fear of being held to account does make some sense, but is also an obvious propaganda point. .

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  125. Marcus says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Lmao most South Asian Mooslimbs I’ve met claim to be of Persian, Turkic or Arab ancestry; shows what they really think of India. Look up Shah Walliulah inviting the Afghans to invade or the Muslim treachery at Talikota if you need more proof

  126. @obwandiyag

    I’d be careful about alleging ignorance, there, Tiger, when displaying such a towering example of it yourself. When the first Europeans, with their vastly superior weapons, arrived, they were embraced by the first natives they encountered as valuable allies against the natives’ real enemies–the next tribe up the coast.

    Truthfully, the moment the first European boot touched North American soil, the natives were doomed, regardless. The distance was too great.

  127. Adûnâi says:
    @Priss Factor

    “Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense.”

    Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

    Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!

  128. Adûnâi says:
    @Anounder

    “Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness”

    “Mestizos and Orientals are the ones who threaten Whites from miscegenation.”

    Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

    The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.

  129. @CMC

    So why didn’t any of the Jews in this story suffer the same “undoing”, and shame, and not get tarnished,or lead to the downfall of THEIR elites?

  130. @Priss Factor

    If, as you claim, Goebbels was a “psycho,” he was a very astute one. He was aware of Jewish power and influence in America long before Americans (those whom ARE aware of it) did.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  131. “Whites are damaging themselves by allowing mass immigration to make them minorities in their own countries, and these characteristics of Whites generally are as good an explanation as any for why this is happening — they are a starting point anyway.”

    Let’s take your example. I am fairly certain few people hold my view of immigration — after 9/11 the country required a five year moratorium on all immigration.

    But ease of immigration is not some kind of “white altruism”. It is the economic and political choice of lower costs to profits and politically part of the “replacement theory” espoused by some of the writers on this site. It may be cloaked in altrusistic rhetrorical garb, but at the end of the day – it’s economics and more strategizing to social and political advantage.

    The altruism barely makes for underwear. I hold suspect even that which immigration posturing by christians which is unsupportable by scripture, as something less than a call for god’s charity. And the uncharitable nature towards their own is the evidence.

  132. Susan says:
    @S

    We see mixed race couples all the time in media now. Assuming this was a recent phenomenon, except for a few well-known movies, like West Side Story and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, I did a search a few days ago for “interracial relationships in movies.” I found quite a number of lists, like “13 Groundbreaking Films about Interracial Romances” and “Top 10: Movies with Steamy Interracial Couples.” The Wikipedia List of interracial romance films starts with 1917 and is quite long.

    The first time I heard of Jewish promotion of miscegenation was years ago while listening to that old Myron Fagan recording. I thought it was really far-fetched. He talked about fellow playwright Israel Cohen and his Broadway play The Melting Pot.

    Two nights ago I watched Diamond Head (1965) on amazon. Charlton Heston was a bigoted, selfish, rich man. The Hawaiian and Asian characters were gentle, kind, loving, selfless. A Hawaiian mother was given the opportunity to state her case against mixed marriages: if all Hawaiians married out, the Hawaiian race would disappear. But if they loved each other, she couldn’t protest.

    Last night I watched A Patch of Blue, also 1965. Shelley Winters won an Academy award for playing the most hateful, crude, violent prostitute possible. She pulled out all the stops. Her father was alcoholic, bumbling, weak, mean, irresponsible. Sidney Poitier was a perfect gentleman, intelligent, calm, generous, well-dressed, selfless, loving. Really the movie was a piece of almost unbearable propaganda from start to finish. Rotten Tomatoes critics loved it 100%.

    The writer and director of both movies was (((Guy Green))). He must have either really hated white people and/or have been paid a lot.

    No wonder everybody’s thinking is so messed-up, with all the propaganda there has been for so long in entertainment, news media and academia.

    • Replies: @S
  133. @Skeptikal

    Well, gosh, you are moving the goal posts in order to distract from the fact that I answered what you asked.

    Do you doubt that thousands of families and 10’s of thousands of individual Germans (including in the eastern and outlying provinces) took their own lives between late 1944 and late 1945?
    I do not quote from Wiki but from sources that Wiki quotes from.
    I take nothing from Life magazine so not sure why you mention it. Are you now arguing with that Wiki page and its biased references to nazi motivations rather than with me and what you call “my contentions”? I can see that Yes, you are. You’re trying to change the focus.

    Which leaves this question for you: Do you have knowledge to contradict any of what I offered about the very large amount of suicides in Germany (no matter where it comes from) or are you now in full agreement with it? I think you need to answer this question for the record.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  134. Susan: “No wonder everybody’s thinking is so messed-up, with all the propaganda there has been for so long in entertainment, news media and academia.”

    People who think of propaganda as a cause rather than a symptom should remember that long before mass media of any kind, long before political correctness, and in fact, long before the word propaganda was even invented, it was white Christian Americans who made negroes full citizens of their country and gave them the vote. They chose to smoke the Christian opium of racial equality instead of facing racial reality. With most whites still nominally Christian, and their culture having been deeply shaped by Christianity, it stands to reason that such a crazy, Jesus-besotted people would want to see their craziness depicted as normal on the silver screen. West Side Story (1961), the first film that pushed race mixing in a big way, was wildly popular with whites, made tons of money, and won 10 academy awards. Lots of Jews involved in making the movie, true, but they were just giving whites what they wanted to see. Nobody was forced to buy a ticket.

  135. S says:
    @Susan

    But if they loved each other, she couldn’t protest.

    Yes, they shamelessly use emotionalism to sell what they’re selling.

    During the primordial days of the multi-cult in the mid 19th century they were a lot more plain spoken. That was before they’d developed ‘pavlovian condition’, aka ‘positive reinforcement’…ie ‘catch more flies with honey than with vinegar’.

    In the mid to latter 19th century there had been an attempt by powerful elements of the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish people’s elites and hangers on to flood both the United States and Australia with literally tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves (‘cheap laborers). Elements of the corporate media were pronouncing it a done deal that the US would soon be Asiatic in it’s character.

    They ran into a big problem though as people naturally were resisting being genocided by their being mixed out of existance. By 1900 in both the US and Australia this attempt was stopped.

    In the midst of this, during the Spring of 1874, the Pall Mall Gazette of London editorial excerpted and linked below laments that this resistance is taking place, but rather than admit that the problem is with the pure greed and depravity of those early ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ types pushing this genocidal scheme, they instead blame those being displaced and genocided with their concern about their ‘race’.

    Instead of ceasing and desisting as the promoters of so called ‘cheap labor/mass immigration should of done, they instead came up with the ideology of ‘cheap labor’ and institutionalized division known as multi-culturalism.

    And that’s a very big part of why the ‘anti-race’ campaign known as ‘anti-racism’ exist today.

    ‘A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities.’

    And even the most ignorant of those who among they come have a hazy notion that there are 400,000,000 or more similar strange looking people tightly packed at home and ready enough to seek their fortune elsewhere. The storehouse of labour seems practically inexhaustible. A dread of what might happen if capitalists could command and control these vast hordes of workmen as against men of their own race has made the labouring class, at any rate, blind to their good qualities. The Americans, for instance, were fain to admit that the Chinese came out grandly in the construction of the Pacific Railway. But this has no wise abated the sullen hostility with which they are regarded in California, and it needs but little to stir up this enimity to take a much more active shape than that of mere petitions to Congress.

    Vol 121, 1874, Littel’s Living Age (pg 124)

    https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011827682

  136. Cyrano says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    Maybe they killed themselves because they couldn’t be bankers.

  137. @ClassicBenz

    If, as you claim, Goebbels was a “psycho,” he was a very astute one. He was aware of Jewish power and influence in America long before Americans (those whom ARE aware of it) did.

    I’m not saying Goebbels wasn’t intelligent, capable, and even brilliant at times. But all said and done, he was a vain and vapid psychopath who found his path to glory(and infamy) as the mouthpiece of a demagogue. He was a demonic figure.

    True, there was much that was demonic about Jewish influence in Germany, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    It’s like Shah was a shit, but the Islamic Republic brought new problems to Iran.

    Shit can be opposed by shit.

  138. S: “And that’s a very big part of why the ‘anti-race’ campaign known as ‘anti-racism’ exist today.”

    There’s no doubt that motives of greed can be cited for anti-racism, but it’s worth pointing out that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (full title) was first published only a few years before, in 1859, and was still very controversial. Its most vocal and effective opposition came not from industrialists, not from capitalists, but from Christians, and it remains so today. The Darwinian worldview that sees man not as a special creation of God, but as just another animal, and which posits that the discrete human races are locked in perpetual, biologically-determined struggle, is antithetical to Christianity. All the major branches of Christianity are officially anti-racist, and Christian churches have played a key role in bringing non-whites into formerly white lands And too, re Chinese laborers in America, it’s an open question how much of that white opposition was based on the fact that the Chinese, unlike the American negroes, weren’t Christians. Had the Chinese been Christians, there’s plenty of reason to think that the opposition to their immigration would not have been as fierce.

  139. Marcus says:
    @Anounder

    Yeah that was some seriously homoerotic stuff, maybe he’s a sockpuppet of Whiskey

  140. @Carolyn Yeager

    What is your point? Their parents killed them.

  141. @Carolyn Yeager

    “I still don’t get it.”

    You don’t get much of anything.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @eah
  142. @David In TN

    The question was to Priss Factor who said:

    It was tongue in cheek but maybe the point got aborted along the way.

    It turns out he had no point but was just trying to be funny. Both times. If he thinks national genocide, family suicide and abortion are joking matters, it’s no wonder he doesn’t want to explain himself and chooses to drop the whole matter. Skeptikal did the same thing with me.

    So I do get it now. I wanted to hear it from him, but you know what they say about nameless, faceless forum snipers. They’re the sneaky partisans of our Internet Age. You’re one of them.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  143. Miro23 says:
    @Fool's Paradise

    Jews did overthrow the WASPS and now rule the roost because, as Prof. Kevin MacDonald illustrates in his great trilogy on the Jews, Jews are tribal and Gentiles are not. Jews help each other, they hire each other, they lie for each other, they promote each other, they protect each other, their attitude is us against them. Since WASPS are not this way, they didn’t stand a chance.

    This is really clear. Either tribalism is illegal in a multiethnic society (in practice impossible) or tribalists are simply not allowed entry or are deported.

    These are all really unpleasant options. Maybe it’s better to abandon the dysfunctional “multiethnic society” idea and simply define which race is the owner of which historic territory (i.e. which majority race runs the government, media, legal system and determines the economic framework in each country).

    Less opportunities for Jewish tribalists outside Israel but better for everyone else.

    • Replies: @Fool's Paradise
  144. eah says:
    @James Kabala

    And if they weren’t ‘inconspicuous’, it was largely their choice.

    For those who understand German (or Swedish subtitles), here is an interesting interview with Edda Goering (for Swedish TV in 1986), who did lead a largely ‘inconspicuous’ life — she died in Dec, 2018.

  145. eah says:
    @David In TN

    Although it’s rather OT, I did read the entire thread of these related comments — and actually Carolyn Yeager ‘got it’ and made sense throughout.

    As for Magda, call it delayed abortion. Woman’s right to choose.

    The above remark was simply idiotic and tasteless, even if “tongue in cheek”.

    It was Magda Goebbels who insisted on killing the children — Josef Goebbels more or less acquiesced to it — she arranged (it is commonly assumed the children were first drugged, then given cyanide) and made sure it was done.

    She was also a fanatical National Socialist, who was known to be enamored with Hitler (who also admired her) — some claim she married Goebbels at least in part to ensure she had frequent contact with Hitler — she wrote a letter from the bunker to her eldest son (from an earlier marriage):

    Gott gebe, dass mir die Kraft bleibt, um das Letzte und Schwerste zu schaffen. Wir haben nur noch ein Ziel: Treue bis in den Tod dem Führer.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  146. @Miro23

    Alas, Miro 23, tribalism cannot be made illegal, and we cannot “abandon the multiethnic society”, because our new rulers have stuck us with both. To quote Herve Ryssen, “Jews have always encouraged immigration into all the countries in which they have ever settled…because the resulting dissolution of national identity protects them from any ‘nationalistic’ upheavals.” “All Jewish film producers have released at least one or more films advocating race mixing and the ‘multicultural society’”

    • Replies: @Fool's Paradise
  147. @eah

    Thanks eah. It really helps to receive support sometimes. I’ve known you as that moniker for a very long time. I used to think we were completely in step but I guess that was just about holohoax. When it comes to Adolf Hitler and National Socialism you now seem to be somewhat more nuanced than I.

    Just as food for thought (because it is off-topic), why use the word ‘fanatical’ regarding Hitler and National Socialism — why not just ‘convinced?’ Thousands of other Germans were just as convinced and took their and their loved ones lives — it wasn’t only to avoid the Red Army. The global new order media like to explain it as the Nazis scaring the people about what the Allies intended to do to them. But what they warned of turned out to be not as bad as what the Allies did do! If it weren’t for the Soviet threat against Europe (cold war) there would not be a Germany today. As it is, it has become “the Federal Republic,” a multicultural, multiracial horror show in which German national identity is increasingly punished. [such as here: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-identitarian-movement-classified-as-far-right-extremist/a-49550414%5D

    Who can say Magda was wrong? Death, even at a young age, is not the worst thing.

    • Replies: @eah
    , @Skeptikal
  148. Anonymous[283] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    A lot of German and Austrian Jews committed suicide shortly before being sent “east”. The Wallys of this world should have been around to reassure them that nothing was going to happen to them because Auschwitz and Treblinka were holiday camps.

    • Replies: @eah
  149. eah says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    I think fanatical is appropriate here — after all, she did see to the murder of her children because she felt life, both for her and for them, after Hitler and the Third Reich would not be worth living.

    As you may know, it was reported that the oldest Goebbels daughter, Helga, showed signs of a struggle (bruising) — as the oldest, she may have sensed what was going to happen, and resisted being drugged (again it’s generally reported they were first drugged and then later poisoned with cyanide).

    Who can say Magda was wrong?

    Most people would — I do — the Goebbels children were never given a chance, and as noted in this thread the children of even high-ranking figures in the Third Reich went on to live full and largely inconspicuous lives — and to paraphrase you: who’s to say the Goebbels children would not have wanted and chosen that?

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  150. eah says:
    @Anonymous

    Auschwitz and Treblinka were holiday camps

    Again, this is not a revisionist site, and I don’t want to ‘go there’ — but such ridiculous dishonesty and hyperbole is really pathetic — what is the point? — you just invite contempt and ridicule — revisionists (‘Holocaust’ deniers if you prefer) admit conditions in the camps were bad and caused many deaths, especially at the end of the war — they dispute that these were “death camps”.

  151. Skeptikal says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “I do not quote from Wiki but from sources that Wiki quotes from.”

    My point was that you “quote” from Wiki without acknowledging your source.”

    I didn’t know that suicides were in the thousands.

    what caught my attention was this:
    “I blame it on the Allies (mainly Roosevelt’s) unyielding terms of Unconditional Surrender for Germany. ”

    It looks to me as though it was Nazi propaganda and the brainwashing of years of living under that totalitarian regime—drinking Nazi Koolaid— that caused people to decide to take their own lives.
    Suicide was the last hurrah for the Nazi elite and apparently was the Wagnerian denoument also “required” of the populace.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  152. Skeptikal says:
    @Carolyn Yeager

    “Death, even at a young age, is not the worst thing.”

    Fanatical. To choose death for a child.
    Also, criminal. Actually, murder.
    Jeez.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  153. @Robert Dolan

    Agreed.

    Enjoyable write-up once again, Mr. Lynch. Have you considered one for “Eyes Wide Shut”?

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  154. @eah

    You are free, of course, to have your opinions about it, but you were not a party to it, you were not a principal. We are merely speculating.

    she felt life, both for her and for them, after Hitler and the Third Reich would not be worth living.

    I don’t think “not worth living” describes it quite right. The children would be encouraged to say critical things about their parents and Uncle Adolf, etc. They would be indoctrinated with different ideas, and they would likely react differently to it, ending in disagreement with one another, losing their close bond. All this Magda could foresee, since I can, and her maternal instinct, as well as political, wanted to keep them with her, not hand them over to enemies. Way too many emotional issues involved here to expect a purely rational decision.

    the children of even high-ranking figures in the Third Reich went on to live full and largely inconspicuous lives

    Inconspicuous to you maybe, but a child of a high-ranking nazi who is continually demonized in the media can never be inconspicuous within Germany, nor live a “full life”. What they do is learn to cope and compensate.

    the Goebbels children were never given a chance

    I’d like to raise the point that the German people – their German Reich – was never given a chance. That’s the underlying problem. Both under the Kaiser and under Hitler, they were attacked for being too successful by jealous foes. Magda believed in the great united Reich for Germans and was bitter about its defeat. For many looking on, I think they resent being cheated from seeing how these children would have turned out, would have adapted … and I suspect that was part of Magda’s motivation NOT to afford them that entertainment at her expense. These children were her creation for the Reich and she was taking them with her. Partly out of spite? Possibly so, and even at that I do not blame her.

    Are you German? You haven’t answered whether you think all the German parents who killed their children along with themselves were behaving out of fanaticism. Why didn’t they trust that their children would be allowed to live full, rewarding lives?

  155. @Fool's Paradise

    Sorry, I forgot to name the source of the Ryssen quote. It’s Understanding the Jews, Understanding Anti-Semitism.

  156. @Skeptikal

    I didn’t know that suicides were in the thousands.

    Finally, you admit your ignorance. As long as you can add a lot of other ignorant charges along with it.

    I completely disagree with everything you say and stand for. You are a prime example of something I’ve written/posted a lot about – hostility toward Germans. Unreasoning hostility, so nothing more to be said.

  157. @Skeptikal

    I would choose death for my own child over being put into your hands. Yes, I would.

    I don’t know you, you are a stranger, your views are opposite to mine, I dislike and mistrust you … so how could I put my child in your hands? Death would be preferable in this case. And that is how Magda saw it.
    I repeat, there are worse things than death. Death is release and is a beautiful experience.

  158. Carolyn Yeager: “I repeat, there are worse things than death. ”

    “Better off dead than red” was commonly heard in America during the Cold War. Besides, the children would only have been raped by the Red Army goons, which Magda no doubt saw as a fate worse than death. She made the right decision.

    • Replies: @eah
  159. eah says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    the children would only have been raped by the Red Army goons…She made the right decision.

    Just so we’re clear on this — you think 1) that “Red Army goons” would have been allowed to rape the Goebbels children (presumably just the girls, but I don’t know what’s going thru your mind), the children of the Reichspropaganda Minister (“Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda”), and 2) killing them was “the right decision”.

    At the time of their deaths, the daughters of Josef and Magda Goebbels were 12 (Helga), 11 (Hildegard), 8 (Holdine), 7 (Hedwig), and 4 (Heidrun) years old.

    So you think all of them, even the 4 y/o, would have been (allowed to be) raped?

    It’s a rhetorical question of course.

  160. eah: “So you think all of them, even the 4 y/o, would have been (allowed to be) raped?”

    Allowed? It was encouraged. It astounds me that you would be ignorant of the mass rapes committed by the Red Army, you braying jackass.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

    Solzhenitsyn was there, in the Red Army at the time, and even wrote a poem about it.

    The little daughter’s on the mattress,
    Dead. How many have been on it
    A platoon, a company perhaps?
    A girl’s been turned into a woman,
    A woman turned into a corpse.

    Or, read Goodrich’s book Hellstorm.

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2014/11/26/hellstorm-book-review/

    • Troll: eah
    • Replies: @eah
    , @Adûnâi
  161. “I think ‘Twelve Years a Slave’ was also largely anti-white propaganda.”

    Nonsense

    • Replies: @eah
  162. @chrimony

    Blackpilled does great work on youtube… but I sort of wonder if only those already redpilled will be able to understand his points.

    Check out Morgoth’s Review also, he’s golden all the time now.

  163. @Dan Hayes

    Read the Great Books in my youth. When the movie came out I was sure I knew the name but couldn’t place it. Then a friend mentioned MA and I made the connection.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  164. @eah

    If someone tried that today it would be considered a form of white supremacy.

  165. eah says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Traudl Junge, secretary to Hitler (he dictated his political testament to her) was a young (25 y/o) attractive woman in Hitler’s Umfeld — she was arrested and imprisoned by the Russians, but never reported being raped.

  166. @OEMIKITLOB

    Enjoyable write-up once again, Mr. Lynch. Have you considered one for “Eyes Wide Shut”?

    Funny you should ask . . . but with Epstein and all, the answer is yes.

    • Replies: @OEMIKITLOB
  167. eah says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Per the 1860 census, only a small fraction of Americans owned slaves; max 5% — of course the percentage of Southerners who owned slaves was higher, but still quite a small minority — also slave ownership was concentrated in what some call the ‘Plantation Class’ — slaves were fairly expensive, not only to buy, but to keep: housing, food, clothing, etc — they were an economic asset, but they had to ‘earn their keep’, otherwise they weren’t worth owning — now, did it really make sense to subject fairly expensive economic assets to brutal physical mistreatment that could render them unable to work and hence ‘earn their keep’? — there was a LOT of what I will call horrendous violent and in the end gratuitous mistreatment of slaves in that movie — the story could have been told just as effectively without all, or so much, of that — but the black director, Steve McQueen, chose not only to include it, but to feature it.

  168. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:

    I also enjoyed the film on its merits, but I was much more interested in the actual events. While the film does condense quite a bit it does a decent job of being true to reality. During the film Stempel recounts for the Congressional subcommittee the stage directions he was given to add drama to the events. This is much more important than it seems and was even worse in reality.

    To say the quiz shows were rigged is to imply that the process was corrupted. It was totally scripted, some would say staged. Dan Enright testified that the first episode of Twenty-One it was played fair and it ended in a tie of 0-0 because nobody knew any answers. The only way to make the game playable was to dumb down the content. At the time the television executives had a much higher respect for the audience so this was rejected in favor of scripts.

    The movie does an excellent job of playing Herb Stempel as a total dork, but this too was part of the act. Herb Stempel said, “The whole idea was to make me appear like an ex-G.I. working his way through college. The reason I had been asked to put on this old, ill-fitting suit and get this Marine-type haircut was to make me appear as what you would call today, a nerd, a square. … I was never to call the Master of Ceremonies, Jack Barry, “Jack.” I was always to call him “Mr. Barry” and be very, very humble and very sheepish.” The detail of wearing his dead father-in-law’s suit was pure misdirection, but much better cinema than reality.

    Stempel is interesting for one other thing which is his military service. He served in the infantry during WW2, but after the war was trained by the counterintelligence corps. He was more James Bond than Steve Urkel. His central role as the primary informant should take on another flavor with that detail.

    I have to disagree with Mr. Lynch regarding Van Doren. While his reputation was diminished by his role in the scandal it didn’t interfere with his career. Prior to the exposure of the scandal he planned to work for Encyclopedia Britannica. After the scandal was exposed he got the job. The editor and author of serious scholarly texts hardly seemed to have paid much of a price in his life.

    I also suspect that Van Doren may not have been as gentile as proclaimed considering his mother’s maiden name was Graffe. Her lack of publicly available genealogy is quite odd considering that her son, her husband, and herself were all public figures and prolific authors.

    Why was there an investigation anyway? The beginning was a federal investigation into quiz shows, but why were they investigating? Notwithstanding the grand jury legerdemain in New York the House Subcommittee made no criminal referrals to the DOJ. There was no crime. Everything done was unethical, but not illegal. It didn’t become illegal until 1960. A massive public investigation that revealed no criminal behavior. The purpose of the inquiry remains an open question.

    The film is of course fiction because it tells a better story. The story of a bold Congressional investigation into a rigged quiz show is much more compelling than likely staged inquiry into a totally staged contest. The moral quandary between playing a fair game versus a rigged game is much more fraught than the straightforward proposition of playacting. The dynamic of WASP aristocrats fighting off both sophisticated and stereotypical Jews is also much more interesting than outdated crypto-Jews getting replaced by open Jews. The plucky and dorky GI wearing a hand-me-down suit is much better than a stone-cold spook adopting his cover. The Quiz Show movie doesn’t deserve the Goebbels prize for the reason you think, but it is excellent propaganda all the same.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s_quiz_show_scandals
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Van_Doren
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Stempel

    • Replies: @eah
  169. eah says:
    @Anon

    Why was there an investigation anyway?

    I never understood that either.

    It didn’t become illegal until 1960.

    And I’m surprised about this too — any such law must have also covered other activities in addition to TV game/quiz shows…?

    Thanks for your comment.

  170. Anonymous[171] • Disclaimer says:

    Geritol may have been worthless but still preferable to Jerry-Toll, the bitter and very expensive pill that Germans(and other whites) must take for perpetuity to atone for the Holy Holocaust.

    Interesting review but I think Trevor Lynch’s ‘Aryan’ neuroticism is showing in willfully misreading certain aspects of the movie. Consider…

    Van Doren objects to being, in effect, tricked into taking part in a rigged game, but Enright and Freedman salve his conscience by telling him that he is promoting higher educational standards to American schoolchildren. The money also helps.

    The role of money isn’t merely incidental to the story. I don’t know what happened in REAL LIFE, but in the movie, the money helps A LOT. Also, there is hardly any sign of troubled conscience on his part when he’s riding high. In hindsight for the audience, his initial objection to cheating comes across as merely formal. It was the ‘right’ thing for a man of his class and background for him to say. If indeed he was made of finer and truer stuff, he wouldn’t have fallen for the pap about promoting education. He would have spotted it right away as disingenuous rationale. It turns out what he wanted from the beginning was money and fame. This side of him remained repressed because he came from a respected literary family in a culture that still distinguished between highbrow and lowbrow. Twenty-One Questions was essentially a bogus show in that it was lowbrow entertainment with pretense of highbrow erudition. Thus, the millions who really watched for the suspense and sensationalism could tell themselves that they were watching it for Kultur. Of course, Hollywood much the same from the beginning, making mass entertainment for the unwashed but also adapting classic novels(in watered-down form) or dealing with TIMELY issues to impress the world that Hollywood isn’t only about nickels and dimes but culture and values as well. (QUIZ SHOW was one of those ‘serious’ movies made by Hollywood for Oscar Season.) The later game shows were more honest as shameless entertainment. Who wants to learn anything on FAMILY FEUD? Among game shows, JEOPARDY was semi-smart but hardly more challenging than Trivial Pursuit.

    [MORE]

    As there is no more highbrow vs lowbrow dichotomy anymore, even children of elite families need not worry about their shameless hankering for fun, entertainment, fame, and celebrity. Today’s elders are the children of the Sixties who grew up on Rock music, and their kids and grandkids have similar tastes(that have gotten even more vulgar). But in the late 50s and early 60s, there still was a literary culture, and the TV was considered the Idiot Box. Van Doren was obviously smart(though far from genius) and erudite, but at least according to the movie, it seems he followed the path of elite education and high culture because such was expected of him in a family that was steeped in literature and seriousness… though, to be sure, it’s refreshing that the Van Dorens are shown to have a light side as well. These are not cold rigid Wasps, the kind in Woody Allen’s INTERIORS. At the father’s birthday, the old man reads poetry, but everyone would rather hear something else and gently mock him, all in good humor. It’s a serious but not stuffy family. Though Charles Van Doren followed the straight and narrow path of earning his degrees and settling down to an academic career, there seems to have been a burning desire for easy money and publicity. He wanted the LA DOLCE VITA lifestyle.
    While popular culture played a big role in America since the 19th century — think of P.T. Barnum and Wild Bill’s travel shows — , its power grew exponentially after World War II. America experienced prosperity like never before. Even ordinary folks could afford nice big cars. Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Marlon Brando, James Dean, and etc. were legends in their time. With radios and then TV’s spreading like wildfire all across America, the nation came together in collective awe of celebrity. JFK was the first celebrity-president or TV-president, and his tragic death was soon followed by amnesia and Beatlemania, an aspect of Americanism wonderfully captured at the end of Robert Altman’s NASHVILLE where the audience are soon clapping to “It Don’t Worry Me” after a country-singer star has been fatally shot. It shows both the stupidity and stamina of Americanism: The easy forgetfulness and distraction by entertainment and the resilience to revive one’s spirits and march on with song and dance. After 9/11, Americans went shopping like after the JFK assassination, they went to Beatles concerts.
    A sci-fi variation on QUIZ SHOW’s theme is THE TRUMAN SHOW where the main character isn’t merely obsessed with pop culture but a product of it. It turns out he is IN a TV Show. And even as the audiences root for him to escape the TV bubble-world, they themselves are completely glued to their TV’s. Indeed, it appears the ONLY way they can experience the thrill of liberation from TV is by watching TV, a prison of their minds that creates the illusion of freedom with constant flows of images. And when Truman finally escapes, they are still watching. They themselves cannot quit the habit. TV banned tobacco ads but turned out to be more addictive than nicotine. Sam Peckinpah’s final movie THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND was prophetic about how the video technology would take over our lives. In the movie, government agents use video surveillance to trick and dupe people, but now, countless millions are offering up their own images and sounds for companies like Google and Facebook to track.

    By the looks of the movie, Van Doren wasn’t honest with himself because of his family background and prevailing sensibilities of his socio-cultural milieu. It was still a time when colleges were respectable places of serious knowledge. Back then, most universities didn’t have Film Studies Departments even though Film as Art Form(especially foreign cinema) was being taken seriously by the elites. Susan Sontag had yet to write her Notes on Camp, and Pauline Kael had yet to arrive on the scene. Andrew Sarris said he excluded both TOUCH OF EVIL and VERTIGO — genre crime thriller and genre romance-mystery — from his 10 best list of 1958 but included Stanley Kramer’s ON THE BEACH for its serious treatment of a grave topic, something he soon came to regret. When Sarris, under the influence of French cinephiles, changed his attitude and gave a glowing review of Hitchcock’s PSYCHO, it was still a time when such views raised eyebrows. Now, ON THE BEACH wasn’t highbrow but it was serious, and educated people were supposed to be very concerned about the world. In 1955, the Best Picture went to MARTY(highly praised in Europe, especially in France) because it was supposedly a serious and honest look at Real Ordinary Americans and a hopeful sign that Hollywood was beginning to wake up and make films about real problems faced by real people. (HONEYMOONERS was more fun.) It wasn’t merely good but good for you, like medicine. And this spirit also accounted for the rise of Folk Music among college students against the crassness and vulgarity of explosive Rock n Roll. Though politically leftist, Folk Movement was, in many ways, culturally conservative. But then, so was Stalinism. Because of the climate of seriousness, even silly game-show had middlebrow pretensions. And the vast NEW middle class of the post-war period was suddenly flush with money and property, and they were anxious for some cultural capital as well; many families in this period ordered the Great Books series, most of which went unread by both parents and children who preferred the TV and stereo instead. But deep down inside, most people just wanted fun. It wasn’t so much the ‘innocence’ but the ‘stuffiness’ that bored them. They wanted to take off the suit in summer and dive into the pool, like Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE who wants to be ‘different’, but then, it’s been said the Mike Nichols’ movie reflects America of the early 60s than 1967 when so much had already changed. Charles Van Doren of the movie comes across as someone who, for all his education and background, really hankers for fame and fortune and live the 007 lifestyle. (In W. directed by Oliver Stone, Dubya is blue blood but just wants to party and have a good time. In that, he was at least more true to himself than Van Doren.) But given his family and profession, he was doomed to lead a dignified but dull life — all work and no play makes Charles a dull boy — , that is until he appeared on TV and became an overnight sensation. Some people are naturally shy while other are naturally exhibitionist, and Van Doren just couldn’t get enough of the spotlight. Van Doren had initially resisted the offer(in a rather mild and tepid way), but once he got the prizes, he was more than happy to play along. And if the issue of corruption had never come to light, he would likely have lived his out entire life with the myth intact and without a troubled conscience(unlike the James Stewart character in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE who really was troubled throughout his life by the myth that made him a legend and a senator).

    Also, one doesn’t have to be neurotic to cheat in life or be a real a**hole. In CASINO, the L.Q. Jones causes a lot of problems simply because Ace Rothstein(Robert DeNiro) won’t rehire his numbnut brother-in-law. There is rottenness all around, and different people use different means to get what they want. And the two-faced goy weasel car dealer in FARGO rings all too true. Plenty of those types all around regardless of race, color, or creed. And one wonders about the character of Wasp elites when the distinguished Bush family produced dolts like George W. Bush and Jeb ‘please clap’ Bush. Or how about that Dan Quayle?

    And in the end, it wasn’t the Wasp sense of truth and honor that did them in. If QUIZ SHOW shows any Achilles Heel among Wasps, it was the habitual preference for form over substance. If Wasps or ‘Aryans’ had genuine concern for truth and honor(the real kind), they would have spoken the truth about all that mattered. But when push came to shove and Wasps had to choose between genteel respectability(always defined by the changing Zeitgeist) and the cold hard truth, they too often chose the former. Maintaining their good name and reputation mattered more than dropping the pretense and saying it like it is. Elite wasps were like gardeners who want to handle flowers but never the dirt. In SANJURO, the gruff hero teaches the young ones that looks can be deceiving. A charmer can be a scoundrel. Of course, a man can be bad in manners and morals, but real goodness and truth are not about appearances and impressions.
    Another problem with Wasps was the repressive reluctance to speak candidly on a host of important matters of modern times. It’s no wonder Jews took over sexual politics since they were willing to discuss it(even if often in a bad way) — it’s like the liar will be heard over the truth-teller if the latter would rather not speak his piece. Wasp elites were also reluctant to speak honestly about racial issues because they were afraid to ruffle anyone’s feathers. There was something bloodless about them, the anxiety of giving offense. (This bloodless quality was evident even among Wasps who let go of their inhibitions and became libertine. Some joined nudist colonies and were equally as dull and bland in their liberation. They were back to playing bridge and sipping tea, except they were nude this time.) By this, I don’t mean they should have been like the KKK or yelled ‘ni**er’ at the top of their lungs. Rather, they could have put forth a rational and honest discussion of race and racial differences, something many were unwilling to do lest doing so blemish their reputations. It wasn’t just the fear of being called ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ but the anxiety of causing a scene. Another problem with Wasps was the conceit of America itself. American ideals were always too pristine for its often unsettling realities. Whiter the blanket, more easily the spots and stains are noticed. And the Wasp Vision of America was too spotless for the reality that was very spotty, and in time, even the Wasps lost faith in their myth, causing a Narrative vacuum to be filled by other groups, esp the Jews who gained control of institutions that decide such things.
    Also, those who are overly obsessed with respectability don’t have what it takes to get down and dirty in the fight. Though a united Anglo force on either side of the Atlantic was virtually unbeatable against external enemies — consider what Anglos and Anglo-Americans did to Spain, France, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and etc — , once the enemies were allowed into the Anglo Order, the Anglos were far less effective as a power. A united Anglo force at war with an outside enemy doesn’t have to play by gentlemanly rules. Anything goes in a war. Anglo power could wipe out the enemy with ruthless abandon. But when members of the Other were allowed to enter Anglo or Anglo-American society(that were bound by gentlemanly respectability at least at elite levels) and behaved with special aggressiveness & hostility, the respectable Anglos could no longer react with ruthless force. Rather, they were bound by the Rule of Law that guaranteed representation even to their new rivals. It’s like UK and US can kill any bunch of Muslims with unrelenting ferocity in the Middle East, but the Muslims IN the West are untouchable. US in WWII could easily crush Fascist Italy, but the Federal Government had a hellish time dealing with Italian-American organized crime because the Rule of Law guaranteed legal representation and rights even to hoodlums. US soldiers could blow up entire parts of Somalia, but white Americans are helpless to stop Somali mobs rampaging around Mall of America. Anglo Power has a tough hide but soft stomach. Once you get INTO the Anglo order, there is almost nothing the Anglos can do to you even as you act loutish. It’s like a horse is a powerful animal that can crush just about any creature, but if a predator gets on its back and bites the neck, it is helpless. As the Anglos elevated the Law as the highest principle, all those WITHIN the Anglo Order(even if not Anglo) could gain protection of the law that could even be used against the Anglos. Is it any wonder that the Anglo power in India was brought down by Hindus who studied in the UK and gained privilege WITHIN the belly of the empire? If one had to choose between remaining clean & respectable(by retreating) and getting down-and-dirty to fight the hostile Other, Anglos often chose the former IF the hostile Other was INSIDE the Anglo Order. This is why whites in UK are so helpless against the hostile Other. They’d rather keep their ‘good’ manners than use unruly manhood to push back against the Other. Of course, not all Anglos were so refined and dainty. Some were tough and mean(especially the Scotch-Irish in the South, but they were always a breed apart), but Anglo elites became obsessed with their good names, and if keeping their reputation required them to sever their ties with their own unwashed folks(who were still willing to use rough means to protect their turf from the Other), they did so. Similarly, the fancy whites in South Africa, to keep their ‘good’ name and privileges, decided to toss the un-rich one to the wolves… or gorillas. Besides, rich whites have the means to move to greener pastures when the Other gets too unruly whereas the un-rich whites have no such opportunity. The ONLY way un-rich whites could hold their own against the Other was by rough means. But when Wasp elites, in order to keep their reputation, used the power of law to prevent un-rich whites from defending themselves from tougher blacks, the white race was truly lost. With their hands bound by the law, the un-rich whites could no longer use extralegal methods to push back against blacks who had always disregarded the law(even as they sought protection from it) and acted like wild savages. As such, the only fate left for un-rich whites who hadn’t the means to move away from blacks to greener pastures was to surrender their women to Negro men and become submissive cuck-dogs to the black race. Thus, the fall of whites and rise of ‘whiggers’. In BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, the British officer even goes about building a bridge for the Japanese because nothing matters more than his reputation as a leader of men who could get things done.
    When faced with an external enemy, Anglo Power need not worry about the restraint of respectability since there is nothing gentlemanly about dropping bombs and killing bushels of people. Even today, who cares when US drops bombs on Syria and kills the ‘enemy’? No one. Respectability matters only WITHIN the Anglo/American Order, and this is why Anglos lost out. They let the Other enter the Anglo world. Now, not all of the Other were hostile. The mild ones could be digested by the Anglo stomach and become part of the Anglo body. But certain groups, especially Jews, were more like hookworms than food. Once they got inside the stomach, they resisted digestion by weak stomach acid and began to suck on the blood of the Anglo host. Just like a powerful bear that can slay just about any animal can’t do anything about its intestinal parasites, Anglo Power could do little against the parasites that formed in on the inside. And it wasn’t only the Jews who caused trouble but the Irish; though the Irish were eventually digested and more-or-less became part of Anglo-America, they did a lot of damage along the way and weakened American Unity. Instead of taking on the tough Irish who were taking over cities with corrupt Machine Politics and criminality, a lot of Anglos decided to retreat to other areas. This set the template for other troublesome groups to emulate. They realized Anglos are unbeatable and formidable as a united force against external enemies but vulnerable in conflicts with the Other WITHIN the Anglo community. This was why CLASS was so important in the UK. It served as a barrier for the respectable elites who didn’t have the stomach for bloody conflicts WITHIN their own order. Better to keep peoples separate by psychologically instilling them with the notion of Class Distinctions. In the US, the sheer size of the country turned Anglos into both lions and chicken. All that space meant that Anglos could be conquerors waging war to to take the land from Indians and Mexicans. They felt as lions against those perceived as external enemies to the Anglo-American Order. But Anglo-Americans were less confident against the troublesome Other within the American Order. Besides, why worry so much when vast spaces meant Anglos could just pick up things and move to greener pastures to get away from the Hostile Other, especially blacks. So, the very race that conquered land from Red Savages ran like chicken from Black Savages who came conquering with their fists and rage.

    Anglo way was “Be Ruthless With External Enemies and Be Respectable with Internal Citizens”. So, once the Other made it INTO British society, Anglos were bound to treat them with respect. Of course, there were Anglo snobs who snubbed the Other, but over time, they were seen as mean and rude, and so the elites became kinder to the Other… to keep their reputation. As for unwashed whites who continued to push back against the Other, they were suppressed and penalized by white elites who’d rather betray their own folks to keep their good ‘reputation’ as people who simply cannot tolerate ‘racism’. We see this tendency even with Jared Taylor. He is willing to discuss IQ and crime but not the fact blacks pose a threat to whites because they got more muscle and bigger dongs. That stuff is just too ‘vulgar’ for his Anglo sensibility. Also, as ‘antisemitism’ is intolerable in respectable circles, he will stifle most candid discussion of Jewish Power at American Renaissance. Even though he’s treated as an irredeemable pariah by the Establishment, he still clings to Judeophilia out of hope that it will spare his good name. The Age of the Gentleman is over. We need Toughmen.

    Unfortunately, when Enright and Freedman made Herb Stempel take a dive, the unstoppable force of Jewish neuroticism crashed into the immovable object of Jewish unscrupulousness, and the result was a huge explosion. The highly neurotic Stempel was humiliated by being forced to fail on an easy question.

    Stempel is a rather grubby and odious character. And it’s true that his motivations are not pure. He did the ‘right thing’ for all the wrong reasons. Still, in some ways he is more of a man than Van Doren because he admits he’s about greed, vanity, and resentment. He admits he loved the money & attention and wanted more of it. Besides, he was genuinely wronged at least in one way. He had been promised slots on future game shows, which was why he chose to lose on purpose. So, even though he’s nasty and unscrupulous, he didn’t merely act out of spite or envy. He didn’t get what he was promised. A liar who admits he’s a liar is, in some ways, more honorable than a liar who pretends to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Stempel is a pile of shit out in the open. Van Doren is a pile of shit inside a gift box. Stempel is icky, but he is more truthful about who and what he is than Van Doren is about himself. And that is what makes Van Doren worse in some ways. Stempel is shit that smells like shit whereas Van Doren is perfumed shit. And he’s not just a dupe of Jewish executives but a willing collaborator. After the initial half-hearted NO, he easily said YES to all that followed. The problem is he isn’t only dishonest with others but with himself. Stempel is at least honest with himself. He has no illusions that he’s motivated by anything but resentment, rage, and bitterness. In contrast, Van Doren tells himself that it’s all for some higher good. Consider how Van Doren decides to refuse the answers and only the questions(so he can look up the answers himself), as if that really makes a difference. For a man who’s supposed to be so smart and upright, he so easily fell for the sales pitch of Enright and Freedman. You see, “it’s for the children.” But then, he didn’t so much fall for it as went with it because it was a convenient rationalization for his aim for fame and fortune.

    The whole thing would have blown over rather than up were it not for the catalyzing agent of Jewish ambition, in the form of Dick Goodwin, trying to work his way out of a minor staff position in the House Committee for Legislative Oversight.

    Good for Goodwin. He was doing his job and did it well. Now, I don’t know about the REAL Goodwin, but the character in the movie comes across as the most honorable. Though Jewish himself, the main targets of his investigation are Jewish media big shots. Also, even though he strongly suspects Van Doren is lying, he notices his positive qualities and sees much good in the family. He’s not motivated by ethnic sadism or revenge. He wants to hit Big Media without hurting Van Doren, even sparing him with a kind of ‘passover’ favoritism. If anything, this ‘weakness’ on his part compromises him professionally and ethically, but he is human after all and has a soft spot. It’s like the eccentric but upright character in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO tips off his licentious friend because, all said and done, he senses some good in him — the guy is flawed and weak but certainly not evil. Likewise, Goodwin senses that Van Doren isn’t a wicked character. Just weak and all too vain. The problem is Van Doren’s inability to be square with himself.

    None of the people who lied faced any negative consequences… Goodwin, who died in 2018, went on to be a speechwriter and an aide to presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and also to senator Robert Kennedy… Charles Van Doren was the only person in the whole sordid affair to face negative consequences for his testimony, solely because he told the truth… When caught in a perfect storm of Jewish unscrupulousness, neurosis, and ambition, his Aryan sense of honor was his undoing. Thus the story of Charles Van Doren can be seen as the epitome of the fall of the WASP ruling class and the rise of our hostile Jewish elite.

    This is very very wrong. First, why include Goodwin among those who were spared negative consequences when he didn’t do any wrong? If anything, he played an instrumental role in exposing corruption in big media. If he was rewarded later in life, that is justice, not injustice. If he did wrong, it was because he developed a soft spot for Van Doren and tried to shield him from the full brunt of the shit that was about to hit the fan. In this respect, he also ‘fed answers’ to Van Doren, but he wasn’t motivated by greed but sentimentality and infatuation. Also, there was back then a love/hate thing among many Jews toward Wasps. Yes, they felt envy and resentment, but they also aspired to emulate Wasps in class and style. It’s like the bourgeoisie superseded the aristocracy but also looked up to them as a cultural model. Besides, Goodwin doesn’t come across as self-aggrandizing and prickly as Ron Silver as Alan Dershowitz in REVERSAL OF FORTUNE — now, that was painful to watch.

    As for Stempel, things didn’t turn out so great for him either. He brought down Van Doren but never made it on TV again either. The fact that he later got a job in the NY Transportation Department hardly means much. As for Enright and Freedman, they were shyster businessmen and didn’t have much of a reputation to lose. It is then no wonder they got back on their feet with more of their hustles.
    Van Doren fell hard because of his social and cultural standing, something he milked for all it was worth in the sordid affair. If a devil and an angel are both caught in a tawdry act, who’s going to suffer more? The angel of course because of his reputation of being a heavenly creature. An outed devil may lose his loot but not his reputation since he hasn’t any to begin with. Van Doren rode on his reputation. He exploited his family name and standing as college instructor with sterling academic degrees. He sold himself as one of the best and the brightest. And that’s why he fell the hardest. This is why we are less forgiving of priests than prostitutes. If a prostitute is caught doing sordid things, we can expect her to return to her life as soon as she’s out. Business, like politics, has always been sleazy. But priests and religious leaders have(or at least HAD) higher reputation, and this is why it’s far more damaging for them to get caught in lurid acts. In our jaded and cynical age, there isn’t much respect left for priests or professors, but Van Doren came to fame in a time when certain figures of authority were still regarded with much respect and trust. Van Doren betrayed this trust, and that’s why he paid a price.

    Also, we have to consider why he finally decided to tell the truth. He did it only under great duress as he sensed the whole thing would blow up. In some ways, he finally decided to do something halfway honorable but it was too little too late. Also, we don’t know — and he doesn’t know either by the look of it — why he suddenly had a change of heart when he did. Was he truly motivated by conscience? Then, why wasn’t HE the one to expose the truth? And why did he kept on denying the truth, digging himself deeper into the hole until he could no longer fool Goodwin or himself. Was it out of his sense of shame before his family? We will never know, but the movie seems to suggest that his truth-telling stunt was less about coming clean than cleaning up his image as a born-again man-of-conscience. In other words, it’s less a confession and apology than a self-serving act of making himself the object of sympathy. By admitting his guilt in grand manner, it’s almost as if he’s showing off that, as a proud and honorable Van Doren, his conscience finally compelled him to lay it all on the table. And committee member after committee member seems to go along, that is until a Jewish-looking gentleman who saw right through Van Doren’s testimony objects to the self-serving display. And the people applaud the censure because it cuts through the BS.
    Van Doren was not an evil man, and as Goodwin discovered, there were many likable and even good qualities. But all said and done, he was a vapid person who was incapable of being honest with himself. He wasn’t acting out of Honor, Aryan or otherwise. Indeed, the notion that honor is a special preserve of a certain racial group is itself tawdry and dishonorable. Honor is an individual quality. While some groups may have more honorable individuals than others, it’s something that has to be individually cultivated and earned. And it’s about more than appearances. Van Doren never had much honor. He confessed not to come clean and suffer the consequences but to present yet another squeaky clean image of himself as a man so racked by conscience that he decided to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. But as most Americans observed all too easily, it was too little and too late. If Van Doren was really about honor and truth, he should have been the FIRST one to come clean, not one of the last after digging his heels.
    Now, one could argue that Van Doren could have just kept mum like Goodwin advised him to. One could argue that Van Doren decided to testify because, at some point, he really did want to make amends and redeem himself before his family and the American public. Such interpretation is certainly plausible. But more likely, it seems he chose to appear before the committee because his calculating mind decided that the American Public would assume he was given answers and cheated like Stempel and the rest. After all, if cheating was indeed so endemic on the program, why would it have been any different with him? Therefore, even if he himself wasn’t formally accused by the law, he figures that the public will assume him to be a fraud as well. So, the ONLY way he could salvage his reputation was by turning a new leaf, going from know-it-all Van Doren to born-again Van Doren. It was a gambit that failed.

    In a way, QUIZ SHOW is as much a Jew vs Jew story as a Jew vs Wasp story. After all, while Stempel is envious of Van Doren, he is really seething mad about the Jewish execs who forced him to take a dive and duped him with bogus offers. Also, Goodwin isn’t after Van Doren but the Big Jews in the media. It’s a portrait of a time when the Jewish community was still divided between Money and Morality. Plenty of Jews back then were enticed by prestige than profit. Goodwin had the smarts to work in Wall Street and make serious money. And he has money on his mind. The movie begins with him luxuriating over a car to a salesman’s pitch. He could have had wealth, but he chose another line of work. As someone who graduated first of the class at Harvard, he went into government not because he couldn’t cut it in the business world. It was a conscious choice to do the right thing. It was a sacrifice, and there is a part of him that wishes he’d gone for the money. And this is yet another reason why he sort of identifies with Van Doren. Van Doren went for money and fame, and Goodwin wanted some of that too. Amazingly, Van Doren at the peak of his fame seemed to have the best of both worlds. He had a respectable profession as an academic but also became a famous celebrity(like Carl Sagan much later). It’s like he kept his soul and gained the world. But in fact, he made a farcical-Faustian pact and sold his soul for the world. QUIZ SHOW suggest how its near-impossible to have it both ways. Van Doren’s father gained respect as a serious writer, but a man like that could never be Elvis or Sinatra. In contrast, businessmen will do just about anything to gain the world. And people who gain celebrity usually turn out to be vain and vapid. For a short time, Van Doren had the world believing that you could be true to yourself and still be a big splashy star. (In American Cinema since the 80s, only Martin Scorsese succeeded as both artist who remained true to himself and a world-famous celebrity who won many accolades. When Redford was coming into his own as a star, it was the time of New Hollywood when all seemed possible: The Artists would take over from the businessmen in a New Dawn. But as most personal film-makers failed while George Lucas and Steven Spielberg hit the big times, the choices became rather stark: Make films that earn you little money and hardly any fame but remain true to yourself OR make the kind of movies that might become blockbusters and earn you millions even if they go against the heady idealism of New American Cinema. The ethical dynamics of QUIZ SHOW reflects the Big Question hanging over the generation that emerged with New Hollywood that finally came to an end with APOCALYPSE NOW, REDS, and HEAVEN’S GATE. Lucas and Spielberg won. Redford was too handsome not to be bankable, and his sensibility was too mainstream for him to become an artist like Scorsese or David Lynch or Sidney Lumet at his best. Still, his heart was with the Artist, which was one reason he came up with the Sundance Festival to give the personal film-makers an opportunity to be heard.)

    It’s been said that one reason why so many Jews became radical leftists in the late 19th century and early 20th century was too many of them were educated but couldn’t find jobs worthy of their talent and knowledge. Feeling wronged by the world, they embraced socialism/communism and waged war on the capitalist world that snubbed their intelligence and seemed rigged for the interests of a few. This mentality gradually ebbed in the US, the land of the free filled with boundless opportunities for a people as tireless as the Jews. With each generation, Jews gave up on radical socialism and embraced capitalism as the path to riches. But, the leftist legacy still lingered and affected enough Jews who idealistically decided they want to do something True and Important than merely profitable. There was also the long Jewish tradition of rabbinical studies that came with more prestige than the mere making of money. Still, especially as Jews in business got so rich, it must have been painful for idealistic Jews who chose the ‘righteous path’ to see what they missed out on. And it’s possible that Goodwin was partly motivated in this manner when he decided to go after the sleaze-biz Jews. But such Jew vs Jew tension seems to have faded over the years for the most part as too many Jews in media, academia, entertainment, law, big tech, and deep state now seem to just nod along in wink-wink manner to grab everything for themselves. Most Jews figure there is enough to go around for themselves, so why go the Bernie Sanders route? Besides, even the new Bernie Sanders is more about free college tuition that working class interests.

    The psychological aspects of QUIZ SHOW resemble that of CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. They concern the matter of Morality and Motivations, i.e. what motivates people to feel conscience and guilt? What makes them do the right thing? Are moral actions generally the product of genuine conscience or a self-serving ploy to cover one’s own ass? When Bill Clinton finally fessed up and expressed contrition over the Monica Lewinsky Affair, was he acting out of genuine moral sense or squirming in a situation where he could no longer bluff his way out? Is morality all-too-often like a Poker Game where you hide your cards until the last moment when you must turn them over? In Woody Allen’s CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, an affluent and much respected Jewish doctor has his gangster brother murder a mistress who threatened to not only expose the affair but his dubious financial practices. Like Van Doren, he has something more than money to lose. He has a reputation. After she is killed, we see him agonizing over what’s been done. How could he have done such a thing as a respected professional, husband & father, a son-who-made-good from a loving Jewish family, and a well-educated & highly cultured man? But as the film progresses, one senses his pangs of conscience are motivated mainly by fear of being caught. He fears his crime will be uncovered, and he’ll have to face justice and have his name be dragged through the mud in respectable society. Remorse is his crutch lest the world finds out what really happened. The only way to defend his name would be to say, “I’ve no idea how I could have done such a monstrous thing: I don’t know what came over me” and “I know I let my family down.” (The worst example of this is when Jews who get caught with their pants down invoke the “My grandmother was a Holocaust Survivor” card, as if that makes their show of BS contrition all the nobler.) But as the cloud lifts, and he realizes that he’s going to get away with the crime, his remorse evaporates like dew in sunrise. Akira Kurosawa’s HIGH AND LOW also powerfully dramatizes Moral Motivations. Why did its protagonist finally do the right thing? We don’t know, and he doesn’t know either. There is a similar thing with Charles Van Doren. Why did he finally fess up? Contrary to Trevor Lynch’s contention, it doesn’t seem to have been a genuine case of honor, ‘Aryan’ or not. (By the way, if ‘Aryans’ are so honorable, why did so many of them give their souls and bodies to a pathological nut like Hitler? Why did Hitler the ‘Aryan’ betray his trust to Chamberlain? Why did he break the understanding with Stalin? Nazi Supremacism could maybe allow honor among the ‘Aryans’ but not with those deemed untermensch. Likewise, honor among aristocrats applied only to themselves, not to rest of humanity who were treated like dirt. And the expansion of Anglo-America was not based on honor. Whites broke endless promises made to American Indians and used all manner of dirty tricks to take SW territories from Mexico and trigger a war with Spain to take Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba. Was it honorable for Anglo-America to help Jews destroy the Palestinians, a people who’d never done any wrong to Americans? Furthermore, the decline of Wasp America was due to pressure from many groups EVEN THOUGH Jews ran off with the cake. Irish Political Machines destroyed much of rock-rib Republican power in cities. Ethnic groups like Italians practiced all manners of criminal activity to get their piece. In a way, Italian-Americans were more tribal and unscrupulous than the Jews, but why did Jews come out on top? More brains and more concentration on institutions and industries that really mattered. Also, Jews could invent and build entire new industries like Hollywood and Las Vegas whereas Italians were mainly good at leeching off the work of others. So, while it’s generally true that a people who choose principles over power will lose to a people who choose power over principles, it really depends on whether the two peoples are roughly equal in talent. If Jews had never come to the US, who would have won the Wasps vs Eye-Talians rivalry? I would have bet on the Wasps because, even though Eye-talians choose power over principles, they never had the brains and vision to think big and dominate elite institutions like Jews did. In the Jewish vs Italian rivalry, the former won out because more Jews became lawyers whereas too many Italians remained goombas. While Jews played dirty — but then, so did lots of other groups — , their victory had a lot to do with higher IQ. One might argue Episcopalians have equal or even higher IQ than Jews, but in their case, they lost out due to weaker personalities and fading sense of identity. Also, prophetic intelligence gains over analytical intelligence. It’s like the artist dreams the dreams while accountants only count the numbers.

    Anyway, Van Doren’s confession strikes me less a matter of honor than ego. Granted, one’s motivations can be multi-faceted. One can be driven by both noble and ignoble impulses. A man who risked his own life to save someone surely wanted to save the person, but maybe he also wanted to be showered with attention of the whole world. He wanted to be seen as ‘hero’.
    Also, there could be duality in one’s actions. For instance, what was Van Doren’s confession to his father all about in the latter’s empty classroom? Was it to preempt his father’s disapproval were he to find out some other way instead of from his son who, finally like George Washington and the Cherry Tree, decided to confess, “But father, I cannot tell a lie”? Van Doren finally asks his father to attend the hearing. Was it to bare himself completely in front of his family and the world alike? Or, was he using his father’s good name as a moral shield in the sphere of public opinion? While not as craven as “My grandmother was Holocaust Survivor” card, the “Look, my Pulitzer-Prize-winning father sits among you and forgives me, and so, maybe you should too” card is rather low as well. But then, maybe Van Doren was consciously trying to be good 100% and subconsciously pulling a dirty trick 100%. Thus the duality thing.

    Granted, these ‘ambiguities’ and ‘subtleties’ are rather obvious, the stuff of Complexity 101 taught in Film Writing Schools. Everything is a bit too calculated, measured, and dialed in the movie. As such, it’s not a real work or art but Middlebrow stuff, the kind that Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin specialize in. It’s very good of its kind, but we don’t really get to know the characters from the inside. Instead, the movie has been calibrated for maximum appeal without being too simplistic for the more ‘sophisticated’ viewers. The movie was written to be sufficiently ‘thoughtful’ and ‘intelligent’ without digging and pushing too far. That level of ‘complexity’ may have been the reason why audience stayed away — plus the fact that it doesn’t have the humor of something like BROADCAST NEWS or hipster nihilism of SOCIAL NETWORK. Maybe the movie was too complex for dummies and too obvious for smarties. People want heroes and villains, like in ERIN BROCKOVICH and JFK. Or people want to feel warm and fuzzy, like with BEAUTIFUL MIND. In contrast, everyone falls at the end of QUIZ SHOW. Only Goodwin comes out well, but he too proved ineffective in changing the nature of the business.
    QUIZ SHOW’s complexity-by-the-numbers is too familiar. At the end, we see even Stempel feeling a bit sorry for Van Doren. It’s Exhibit A of ‘artful’ balancing to show a bit of redeeming quality in someone who hitherto was presented mainly as a nasty character. It’s supposed to make Stempel into a well-rounded character than a mere caricature. We see the fingers of the film-makers all over the characters, tipping them this way and that lest they stiffen into stock-stereotypes. It isn’t art with characters imbued with real psychology but artful entertainment with characters molded with semblance of complexity. It’s Canned Ham-let. When artists create, the characters at some point gain a life of their own. It’s like artists giving birth to new life in the realm of imagination. In contrast, the characters in QUIZ SHOW, as amusing as they are, never amount to more than puppets of the makers.

    QUIZ SHOW’s actors give their all, but their roles remain stock characters. They are all-too-familiar. They are social, ethnic, or ideal types than truly individual characters. In GOODFELLAS, Henry is an Irish-Sicilian hoodlum but much more. He is Henry, an individual(than a type) with a unique story of his own. In contrast, the various characters in QUIZ SHOW hardly come across as anything more than what-they-stand-for. They are walking emblems, generic types fitted with just enough eccentricity to lend an impression of ‘complexity’. They are walking-talking bundles of lessons than organic individuals. Goodwin is essentially a bundle of observations that go: (1) Has the smarts to make big money and ride fancy cars (2) Has ideals to clean up the system (3) feels animus against the Wasp elites (4) gains affection for Wasp breeding and manners. He exhibits those qualities like various ill-matching suits. Apart from what he stands for, there is almost nothing about who he is. In contrast, even though Michael Corleone in THE GODFATHER also has conflicting emotions and interests, we sense a true inner character that is entirely his own. Even shallow Henry in GOODFELLAS has more inner life than Goodwin who mainly functions as a dramatic chauffeur. QUIZ SHOW is essentially a didactic work that wraps its instructive good-for-you sermonizing with trappings of complexity posturing as Art or, at least, ‘thoughtful entertainment for adults’, the kind of movies Otto Preminger used to specialize in. John Sayles has done the same in a more personal manner, but the result has been much the same. There is too much preachiness despite artful ambiguities, which is why films like MATEWAN and CITY OF HOPE won the usual plaudits from critics but were soon forgotten. His one true great film is BABY IT’S YOU because it’s just about life.

    Despite its pretensions, QUIZ SHOW works best in Capra-esque mode(though that was the worst aspect of Oliver Stone’s JFK, an utterly cynical film with the faux-innocence of MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON). In a way, it is like MEET JOHN DOE where a newspaper and then a plutocrat conspire to turn a hobo into a moral leader to sucker the masses. The newspaper wants to sell more copies, and the rich guy wants Doe the ‘common man’ as his mouthpiece. The story of Charles Van Doren is almost like a real-life imitation of Frank Capra’s movie, the difference being that whereas ‘John Doe’ is a nobody who become somebody, Van Doren was a privileged son of Somebody who via the hype machine became, for a day, a super-somebody who achieved far less than his father but reached many more people and made more money in a few days. Gary Cooper’s ‘John Doe’ went along out of desperation and hunger, whereas Van Doren played along out of hunger for fame and fortune. MEET JOHN DOE, for all its faults, works better because it doesn’t pretend to be any kind of art. Still, the story turns powerful with its depiction of the dark side of mob psychology: How a gathering of gentle lambs can turn into a stampede of angry cattle, at once triggered by unscrupulous operators and spontaneously taking on a manic logic of its own. The final moments really do have the element of tragedy though the ending is a cop-out, but then, it was only being true to form as a Hollywood movie with obligatory happy ending.

    Quiz Show is surprisingly frank about Jewish ethnic hostility toward founding stock Americans. Dick Goodwin is portrayed as a vulgar arriviste. In the opening scene, he chomps a cigar while being shown an expensive Cadillac by an unctuous salesman. Later, when Charles Van Doren and his father treat him to lunch at the Athenaeum Club, his table manners are atrocious.

    But isn’t vulgarity written into the American DNA? Even among the Founding Stock of Americans, there were the elites and the ‘vulgar’ masses who finally gained a voice with the rise of Andrew Jackson. Many ‘vulgar’ Americans disdained the East Coast Brahmins and moved westward to find freedom and play Cowboys and Indians. As for vulgar materialism, Americans didn’t need Jews to teach them that. Why did Americans gain the reputation as Ugly Americans around the world? Why was John Wayne such a huge star? For his manners? And when it came to hostile and vulgar behavior, the Irish and Italians were tops. James Cagney made an entire cottage industry for himself as an Irishman enraged 24/7. John Ford’s idea of celebrating Irishness was having John Wayne and some other big Irish lug knock each other senseless in THE QUIET MAN. Jews were probably least likely to get into barroom brawls.
    So, while Jews were certainly vulgar compared to elite Wasps, they weren’t necessarily so compared to most Americans such as hillbillies, cowboys, Polish steel workers, Irish mobs, and etc. Also, there was division between more genteel German-American Jews and later arrived Eastern European Jews. Jews have been Zeligish in their personality traits and attitudes. They could be vulgar and gross but also refined and sophisticated. Among well-heeled Wasps, a Jew could go into Portnoy mode and make trouble as a vulgarian. But the same Jew could feel intellectual, elitist, or professional disdain for the ‘deplorables’ and the like. Jews played it both ways. When the Wasps lorded over others, many Jews sided with the white working class, the Irish Machine, and ‘dumb Polacks’ to undermine the moral prestige of the privileged Wasps. But today, with Jews as the top elites and with former Wasps elites as their cuck-puppet dogs, Jews are more likely to work with white-goy-comprador elites against the white masses who voted for Donald Trump. One part of Jewishness is like Harold Bloom preaching how dumb and illiterate we are. Another part of Jewishness is like Ron Jeremy sucking his own dick. Jerry Springer embodies both kinds of Jews. He is a shameless vulgarian who hosted one of sleaziest shows ever on TV. But surrounded by deranged ‘white trash’ lunatics screaming ‘Jerry, Jerry’, he comes across as the civilized one. Same with Ace Rothstein in CASINO. He manages the vulgar and sleazy vice industry of gambling, but he works tirelessly to keep things clean and glitzy and won’t tolerate boorish cowpokes without manners.

    As for Goodwin’s table manners, they may not be good but are they really atrocious? Granted, manners are relative. The manners of MOST Americans could be considered rather crude at a fancy joint. The thing is Goodwin’s manners would hardly seem out of place in MOST dining places. Also, there is the American populist tradition that prefers honest food and manners over fancy ones. While I’m all for manners, excessive refinement fosters snobbery and conceit. Besides, there is something bogus about people chewing on chopped up pieces of dead animals pretending they are such clean dignified creatures. Big cities used to be more honest when they had honest steak houses and family restaurants. Now, they have all these fancy hipster joints catering to neo-aristo-sophisticates in Manhattan and San Francisco whose taste for the exotic is a new kind of snobbery made palatable as Diversity.

    Generally speaking, morality tales are less effective than power plays in the realm of art. Kurosawa was one of the few exceptions to this rule. When a storyteller presents a moral lesson, he cannot accept the world as is and seeks to rectify it with the power of moral vision. Thus, there is a sense that some higher being is looking over the struggle between good and evil, tipping the scales in favor of the good; and even if the good loses, there remains the sense of tragic concern, a hope that good shall be resurrected again for another noble fight. As such, the story can come across as overly preachy, didactic, and/or slanted, though in the right hands and good fortune, the result can be a masterpiece like IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
    After all, its purpose is to make us hope and believe that there is something out there, God or History or Humanity, that favors the good over evil. In contrast, the Power Play accepts the world as it is. The cosmos is infinite, cold, and indifferent. As for good vs evil, it is all inside the minds of men, and human affairs are entirely their own with no higher being or force as final arbiter of right and wrong. Now, a power play can have heroic and noble characters, but they are presented as individuals in a world that plays no favorites. This is the difference between Martin Scoresese and Robert Redford. Other than the fact that Scorsese has film-making skills far beyond Redford, his movies accept the world as it is. One may note certain Catholicist undertones in his films, but Scorsese’s approach has been more anthropological, investigative, and empathetic than moralistic, judgmental, and instructional. Even his greatest spiritual film SILENCE is about the apparent absence of God in the affairs of man despite all the dreams and prayers. Objectivity plays by different rules than subjectivity. Scorsese claims to believe in the existence of God, but he’s been artist enough to honestly depict a world that cannot be altered with prayers. This makes faith a far more difficult challenge, but why should faith be easy? For ease, there is the Fantasy genre where the world bends to the will of one’s subjective magical desires.
    To be sure, there are moral concerns in works like GOODFELLAS and CASINO, but we have to find them ourselves. In contrast, Redford — mocked by John Milius as ‘saint bob’ — always had a do-gooder side to him eager to spread the message. He has a softer gaze than the sharp-eyed Scorsese whose focus pierces through everything like a needle. With Redford, the vision is filtered through a sense of moral urgency and/or the sentimentality of nostalgia. Granted, Redford has been more thoughtful than most directors, and he may even have made a work of art with THE CONSPIRATOR. It is closer to the model of Power Play than Morality Tale. It bombed.

    Generally, Hollywood(and the public) has preferred the Morality Tale because it feels more uplifting and assuring that a Power Play that, in its ‘cold’ depiction of the world as is, may come across as ‘pitiless’ and even ‘indifferent’ to its characters and their struggles. THE GODFATHER movies are among the notable exceptions that not only garnered critical accolades and won Best Picture Oscars but proved to be very popular. They accept the politics of the gangster world for what it is — ‘business’ — than some social evil that must be eradicated; if anything, it uses gangsterism as metaphor for power politics in general. America is a land of crooked politicians, ruthless gangsters, and cynical fixers; and most people are either craven suckers looking for a piece or naive squares without a clue; THE GODFATHER movies deal with people who are in the know and in the play. Still, its sentimentality and romantic depiction of the Corleones made it possible for people to root for one side against the other. Even if it was not about good vs bad, it was about ‘personal’ vs ‘business’, and Michael’s turn to crime had a redeeming facet an act of fealty to his father. Part 2 was less sentimental and unsurprisingly made less money than the Part 1.
    Usually, Power Plays end up like PRINCE OF THE CITY, the best film of Sidney Lumet. On the surface, it has all the elements of a Morality Tale as the story is about a cop with conscience who comes clean about police corruption; it also has something of a ‘happy ending’ because he survives the ordeal and gains a measure of respect(from some quarters at least), especially self-respect. But throughout the film, despite his struggles and pains, the camera watches him with cool detachment(as with everyone else) and thus doesn’t reduce his opponents to easy villains. The lead character doesn’t have wind on his back, dramatically or emotionally. If he does overcome the main obstacles, it was due to forces far beyond his control. He’s but a player in a struggle than a classic hero who, charged with righteousness, makes things happen. And because he’s presented with warts and all while the antagonists are shown to have their reasons and interests(that seem not so terrible in a city as corrupt as New York), he doesn’t command the emotional center despite several heated moments(that often make him appear confused and desperate than passionate). In BICYCLE THIEVES, the protagonist ‘loses’ and is humiliated, but emotionally at least he has wind on his back, and we feel all the love for him despite his dejection. But even as we come to admire the character of PRINCE OF THE CITY, the lack of overt favoritism and classic narrative arc leaves him looking stranded and lost. Like Kurosawa’s HIGH AND LOW, there are two story arcs, the second one(where the protagonist himself is put on trial) diminishing than ennobling him, not least because his closest partners see him as a ‘rat’ than a hero. To the Jewish Cop(Jerry Orbach) he admires most, he is a boy scout in a world of crooks and killers, a whore playing nun in a brothel that is NY. And in being true to the law, he ends up betraying his partners and violating his own vow that he’d never turn against them. As the story progresses, we aren’t sure if he is acting out of burning passion for a better world or cold feet under legal pressure. There are some similarities with ON THE WATERFRONT but without the morality tale elements. This is all so jarring since PRINCE OF THE CITY sticks so close to the protagonist. But then, it sticks close to him but not by him. Thus, there is a sense that he is a lonely crusader in a world that has little use for the Good Guy. Furthermore, as the film observes other characters(of varying degrees of legitimacy) in the same way, even the cops who refuse to confess and criminals on the margins retain their own kind of pride and even ‘dignity’, especially the Jewish cop played by Jerry Orbach whose way of thinking is why shouldn’t cops take a piece for themselves when they’re doing all the dirty work to bust up the crooks; besides, there are crooks in high places in the so-called legitimate world, and they look out for each other as well. SERPICO, with its stronger sense of good guy vs bad guys, did better at the box office. It is more like a Morality Tale. Power Plays generally fail with the audience, like THE RIGHT STUFF for example, a film that portrays a much-compromised world for what it is without overtly idealizing or condemning it. Seen up close, the heroes aren’t really heroes, and there’s a lot of politics going on in the space program and in the media as a willing participant in Cold War propaganda. Granted, despite those realities, the film did manage to convey the courage and bravado of the men involved. And even as film shows the machinations beyond hype and publicity, one senses the outpouring of genuine patriotism that is moving. Still, its mode is closer to Eastwood’s later WWII film FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS than the morality tale of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. In FLAGS, despite the heroic deeds of the characters, they are above all human, ordinary people who ended up in battle, whereas the characters in SAVING are pre-ordained to go from humble humans to Noble Heroes at the movie’s end. Guess which pulled in bigger bucks.

    Perhaps, the casting of Martin Scorsese in QUIZ SHOW was a nod to his superior skills and sensibility as a film artist. One of the biggest gripes in movie history was that the morality tale of ORDINARY PEOPLE beat out the power passion play of RAGING BULL, a hard-nosed look at the boxing world. (And year before, many were upset that KRAMER VS KRAMER beat out APOCALYPSE NOW.) Actually, ORDINARY PEOPLE is a pretty good movie and was unfairly denigrated over the years for its win over RAGING BULL. (Also, as in QUIZ SHOW, RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT, and THE CONSPIRATOR, it offers a sympathetic and even affectionate portrait of Anglo-America.) Was Robert Redford, the golden-haired Natural favored over the short ethnic Martin Scorsese? Was the game rigged for Redford over Scorsese like for Van Doren over Stempel? It happened again in 1990 when GOODFELLAS lost out to Wasp Kevin Costner’s DANCES WITH WOLVES. But ethnicity surely had nothing to do with it. The Oscars have a long history of handing trophies to non-Wasps. Frank Capra the Italian-American won three times. Jewish Friedkin won for THE FRENCH CONNECTION, and many Jews before him took home many prizes. Coppola won for GODFATHER Part 2.

    Still, a kind of noblesse oblige(or noblesse apology)attitude has developed among Liberal Wasps that they were showered with advantages, opportunities, and privileges simply because they were born with the right blood and looks… though ironically it was the Jews who often used the ‘Aryan’ look to sell more tickets. Also, Jewish Hollywood has a long history of making Jewish characters seem nobler or more attractive by having ‘Aryans’ portray them, the most famous being Charlton Heston as Moses and Ben-Hur. Lately, Bad Jews are often played by ‘Aryans’: Hayden Christensen in SHATTERED GLASS and Leonardo DiCaprio in WOLF OF WALL STREET, either to sell more tickets or dilute the Jewish factor in all these crimes and misdemeanors. And it’s interesting that many Jewish characters in Barry Levinson’s AVALON are not and don’t look Jewish at all.
    Like Tom Brokaw, Robert Redford also got into the habit of crooning about how he got all the breaks in life because of his race and looks. Some might call it white self-loathing, but there’s also a kind of self-aggrandizement not unlike Van Doren’s confession before the subcommittee. When Liberal Wasps put themselves down as ‘undeserving privileged’, they are in effect elevating themselves as the GOOD WASPS who see the wrongness of their ways, realize its injustice, pledge to do what’s right, and therefore deserve admiration and praise for their redemptive virtue. One wonders if Redford ever picked up on this irony, i.e. that his ‘liberal’ gestures of atonement have been as self-serving as Van Doren’s grandstanding contrition. Granted, as the screenplay is by Paul Attanasio based on Dick Goodwin’s book, it’s difficult to say who the Real Author of the movie is, especially as Redford wasn’t much of a film ‘auteur’ but more of a skilled professional on the level of Ron Howard, Mel Gibson, and Clint Eastwood(whose style has become so even-keeled over the years that it is a kind of mastery and even impersonal style, as in THE MULE, a cruise-controlled movie with superb suspension system).

    It’s rather amusing that a movie that claims to show the wizard behind the Oz is itself hardly above Ozzy trickery. But then, so many based-on-true-story movies are like magic tricks exposing other magic tricks. It pulls a new one while pulling the rug out from the old one. If the point of QUIZ SHOW is that truth-according-to-the-media is not what it seems, shouldn’t it have hewed as close to the real story as possible, like PRINCE OF THE CITY and GOODFELLAS? Rather, it is essentially another fairy-tale even as it warns us not to fall for fairy-tales. Just as the media execs in QUIZ SHOW rigged results to convey what they assumed would be most popular, the makers of the movie left out too many key elements while adding falsehoods to make for a good show, the kind that wins Oscars. (ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN has also been exposed as mostly bogus.)

    One of the big ironies of QUIZ SHOW’s Liberalism is that John F. Kennedy was Van Doren to Richard Nixon’s Stempel. It’s oft been said that Kennedy was the First TV president. He was clearly ‘chosen’ and favored by the Media over Nixon(as Clinton was later over Bush Sr. and as Obama was over McCain). Whatever his real strengths and qualifications, Kennedy was largely a media creation, which was easy because he was so photogenic unlike the dour and sweaty Nixon. And even though Kennedy was just as dirty and tricky as Tricky Dick, his good looks and easy charm lent the impression of a clean youthful leader, with massive help from the tricky Media of course.
    So, it turns out Goodwin, who made his name by seeking the truth behind the image, dedicated his political life to the Kennedys who were often style over substance. If not for the power of TV, Kennedy probably would have lost to Nixon in 1960. The Democrats also cheated big time, especially with the help of the Irish Machine in Chicago. So, it is rather disingenuous for Liberals to be preaching constantly about how WE prefer illusion over reality. It’s been Liberals who dominated most of the outlets of sounds and image. (And when the American public voted for Donald Trump despite all the media manipulations to make Hillary out to be The Next One, the Liberals threw tantrums about how their illusion-factory failed to work this time around. Currently, Liberals are working to rig the internet search engines to make sure Trump loses the next time. To be sure, much of this ‘liberal’ power is more about Jewish ethno-centrism, especially as it never seems bothered by Trump’s supremacist support of Zionists over Palestinians.) Advertising, media, entertainment, and Hollywood were all dominated by Liberals. Too often, Liberals fell under the spell of their own BS. They propped up Sidney Poitier as the Ideal Negro and wept like babies over TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD while suppressing true racial realities. Is it any wonder then that race relations hardly got better over the years(and in some ways got worse)? Because Liberals(as well as cuckservatives) are fixated with the illusion of MLK and the Noble Negro, they are triggered by the all-too-common reality of the Ghastly Negro and desperately try to wish away reality by calling it ‘racist’ or using weasel terms like ‘youths’ and ‘teens’ for black thugs. Or, they’ve fallen into the habit of using the TALK to praise the Magic Negro while using the WALK to reduce black crimes in cities via gentrification or mass-immigration.

    According to the Liberal Narrative, JFK was supposedly killed by a vast right-wing conspiracy, and that’s why the 60s Dream failed, especially with the presidency of the dreaded Richard Nixon. Supposedly, the US was spared from Nixonian Fascism by heroic Watergate Crusaders Woodward and Bernstein. The worst crime and scandal in US history, apparently much worse than the cover-up of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty. To be sure, it’s been said it was the lie than the crime itself that was the real undoing of Nixon, a lesson learned by Ronald Reagan at the peak of the Iran-Contra Scandal. QUIZ SHOW makes a similar point. In the end, Van Doren comes across worse as a fallen idol because of his lies than his actual deeds on the show. It’s like in THE GODFATHER. There is ‘business’ and there is ‘personal’. His cheating was tawdry, but it was ‘business’, show business. But in his lying, he lied to himself, to his family, and to Goodwin who(according to the movie) wanted to spare him. It was a failure on the ‘personal’ level. And when he finally decided to come forward, it was too late as the play was already in motion. It’s like a man who shirks his duties for as long as possible and then making a grand entrance as the best man for the job because, by golly, he has finally realized how important it is.
    Redford may have been reliving the glory of ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN in making QUIZ SHOW. Both movies are about investigation into corruption in high places, but whereas ALL THE KING’S MEN was timely and urgent(released only two yrs after Nixon was gone), QUIZ SHOW is waxed in nostalgia like Coppola’s TUCKER and Levinson’s AVALON — Levinson did much better with DINER that has none of that sentimentality. The nostalgic element, which smooths out what might have been satirical angles, may have confused many viewers as the film seems to both embrace and excoriate the past. That said, who knows what the people want as the dreadful DEAD POETS SOCIETY, another rehash-the-past-bash-the-past movie, was a huge hit. Well, it did have Robin Williams with lots of jokes.

    That said, QUIZ SHOW may be more timely than ever in what seems like a very corrupt America. To be sure, the US(like any nation) has always been corrupt, and it’s the same old song to gripe that things are worse NOW than ever before. It’s like someone seeing a bad movie and saying it’s the worst thing he’s EVER seen. In some ways, things were better back then, in other ways, worse. But, it’s safe to say that Diversity made things far more complicated in recent times. Also, PC has not only broken the back of Anglo-American Rule of Law(that, for all its flaws, made the US a much better country than those in Latin America) but made non-whites blind to their own faults as they are encouraged to scapegoat ‘racism’ for all their problems and failings. Also, Jewish elites have proven to be far worse elite-custodians of the US as they refuse to even admit that they got the controlling stakes and power in America. They are still in ‘minority-victim’ mode and would have us believe that even West Virginia hillbillies got more ‘white privilege’ than Jews in Hollywood, Las Vegas, and Wall Street. Given that the Cold War is over, the current US foreign policy of belligerence(mainly to serve Jewish and Zionist interests) is insane. The culture has broken down to the extent that even mainstream entertainment for kids is filled with porny sewage. Tattoos and piercings cover the bodies of the unwashed and even the washed. Jews got top power but won’t take responsibility as leader. They still point to ‘white privilege’ and encourage others to blame anything but Jewish power. If White Goy Privilege were at least real(in its dominance over America), we could at least call upon White Power to deal with problems. But white power has cucked to Jewish power, black power, and homo-power. Even though there are still lots of rich and successful whites, they lack confidence as race, culture, and elites. They just apologize to blacks, praise Jews to high heaven, and bend over to globo-homo. White Power can’t even control the borders against massive illegal invasion despite the fact that Trump is president. So, in some ways, it is much worse now and getting worse if one-party system in California is the wave of the future.
    In 2016, it turned out Donna Brazile slipped questions to the Hillary campaign that may also have been behind the Steele Dossier that set off the utterly bogus Trump-Russia Collusion BS. And nearly all of media seemed to be of One Mind and One Agenda.
    The media are more concentrated than ever. The so-called ‘left’ has no one like Chris Hedges left. Google, Facebook, and Twitter rig results out in the open with full support of the media that no longer value freedom and controversy. Liberal Jews once took pride in having struggled against corrupt Wasp privilege and White Southern ‘racism’, and the ensuing Narrative led to Jewish self-flattery as a force for reform and progress. There was some degree of truth in the Narrative, but it is now outdated in a much-changed world where Jewish Power has become even more corrupt and destructive of the world in general. But ‘we got the Wasps’ narrative is still sacrosanct among Jews like the ‘we got the Tsar’ narrative through much of the 20th century. Never mind that the system created by Jewish Bolsheviks was many times more repressive and ruthless than the Tsarist Order. As the Jewish Narrative would have it, Jewish radicalism is forever noble because it toppled the Evil Giant but without a shred of self-awareness that Jews, as the New Boss, could be the Evil Giant.
    So, even if US was always corrupt, the sheer scale and shamelessness of today’s corruption is through the roof. And we are to believe that second-raters like Neil DeGrasse Tyson are great minds. And Ta-Nehisi Coates is some kind of genius. And Jews can keep invoking the Holy Holocaust as holy water to wash away all their sins and crimes. They even made a ZELIG-and-SPINAL-TAP-like pseudo-documentary called LIBERATORS for PBS that pushes the lie that BLACK American soldiers liberated the Nazi Death Camps and bonded with Jews as their soul-brethren. ROTFL.

    That said, we can find dirt everywhere, in low places as well as high. Not long ago, there was an Alt Right feud among Richard Spencer, Daniel Friberg, Greg Johnson, Matt Forney, and others with everyone slinging turd all around like monkeys. According to Friberg, Johnson is a cheater and thief. According to Johnson, Friberg is a fraud and charlatan. It was a real shitshow, and supposing only 1/2 or even 1/4 of the accusations all around are true, there seems to be a Honor Deficit on the Alt Right. If people such as this take power from the Jews, would the world be any better? Ideas are one thing, but they only come to life in practice, and practice is guided by character, something sorely lacking in the Alt Right sphere. Also, it’s lazy thinking to rest on the laurel of ‘Aryan’ identity, as if that fact alone automatically bestows honor and dignity to oneself. The Alt Right feud was Aryan vs Aryan, and its sparks revealed a lot of neurosis, nastiness, resentment, envy, and pettiness all around. And no honor. So, maybe neurotic nuttery isn’t necessarily just a Jewish thing. While Jews are indeed the main power behind White Demise, it’s a fool’s dream that white problems will vanish along with the Jews. Even in a world without Jews, the kind of vanity-fueled pissing contest among the likes of Spencer, Johnson, Friberg, Forney, and the rest of them(were they to serve as the ruling elites of the White World) would make for a bad state of affairs.

    QUIZ SHOW is psychologically astute at least in one way. It is about the paradox of how social morality really works, and in this, it shares something with MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE. In a way, morality is the great equalizer in the sense that true right and wrong cannot be determined by race, nationality, sex, or class. If a white man commits murder, he cannot defend himself on the basis of his race. If a nobleman commits rape, he can’t invoke privilege to justify what he did, at least under the judgement of morality. Rich or poor, white or black, German or Russian, Jewish or Gentile, matters of right and wrong should apply equally to all people on an individual basis. A murderer is the man who committed the murder. He can be the richest man in the world, but if guilty, he must face justice like the poorest man… at least in a morally governed world. This is something most people can readily understand(though Negroes like Jussie Smollett and his enablers have a hard time understanding anything as their butts override their brains). And yet, the ‘spiritual’ and ‘iconic’ power of morality doesn’t derive from its egalitarianism but from the element of superiority willingly acting in the service of inferiority. Goodness is boring, even pathetic, in someone deemed ordinary, mediocre, inferior, or dull. Goodness gains an element of nobility only when embodied by a naturally superior person who, out of his own volition, chooses to side with the inferior over the superior. In MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE, Captain Yonoi is ultimately moved and even transformed by Jack Celliers(David Bowie) because, despite his innate superiority(in looks, intelligence, and credentials) Celliers chooses to sacrifice his life for other men, most of whom are ordinary or in wretched state. Yonoi, a man of superior qualities himself, had hoped to bond with Celliers as a fellow superior, but Celliers chooses the moral path of concern for all men. Now, any man can choose to act morally and even sacrifice himself, but most people remain unmoved UNLESS the act is carried out by someone deemed superior. This is why people made such a big deal out of Pat Tillman. He was someone who could have had a great life but gave it all up to fight(and ultimately die) for his country. So, even though morality is about equal justice for all, it gains the aura of nobility only when the clearly superior man forsakes special privilege in favor of others, the lumpen folks. It’s especially moving when Burt Lancaster’s character in GO TELL THE SPARTANS chooses not to bail out and chooses to stick it out among the villagers who’ve desperately come to rely on Americans. And of course, Christianity is the biggest example of this dynamics: The Son of God who chose to do right by Mankind, and the deeply moral religion He founded had a good 2,000 yr run before it was finally slayed by combined power of Jews, homos, and hedonists.
    Anyway, it’s as if the media operators in QUIZ SHOW know a thing or two about this psychology of morality. They sense that the appeal of the show that millions of dummies tune into is the sight of much smarter individuals deigning to share their knowledge and intelligence with the hoi polloi. And Charles Van Doren was especially a good catch because of his family background and academic credentials. Imagine that, a man of such legacy and distinctions humbling himself on a TV show and all for the education of kids across America who are hungry for heroes. Perhaps, the world would be a better place if our moral psychology weren’t so, but it is what it is, and that is why it is important that people of superior qualities go the extra step to do what is right, truthful, and courageous. We need more Jack Celliers, but is it possible in a world as rigged and corrupt as ours?

    Finally, the movie’s most egregious dishonesty is in presenting Charles Van Doren as a handsome golden boy, indeed as if he was Robert Redford with special smarts. It is in this respect that QUIZ SHOW most resembles BROADCAST NEWS where the clearly more handsome Wasp is favored by corporate media over the smarter Jew. Of course, where BROADCAST NEWS is most dishonest is in placing the blame on TV news-readers than on those who control the media, most of whom are Jewish. In other words, the media today are the way they are not because of good-looking but vapid news personalities(who are only puppets) but because of the Power behind them, i.e. even if News Media only hired intelligent & experienced but less attractive men and women to read news on the air, the results would be the same because the mouthpieces would not be allowed to deviate from the Narrative. After all, New York Times hires a lot of smart credentialed people but still publishes a lot of crap because the management enforces the Narrative and Agenda. Journalists are more bloodhounds than wolves; more often than not, they must track down what is approved, not what what they think is important. So, while the shallow William Hurt character in BROADCAST NEWS is certainly a bad omen, the REAL problem is that, smart or dumb, handsome or ugly, the hired guns reading the news on TV cannot deviate too far from the script. This is why Chris Hedges works for RT. The Jewish-controlled US media won’t allow his kind. Of course, Hedges has restrictions on what he can say at RT as well.

    Anyway, BROADCAST NEWS was about substance vs style, smarts vs looks. It was about how the world is unfair in favoring the superficial appeal over core talent. And since ‘Aryans’ are considered to be more appealing than the smarter ‘Semites’, the dire result could be the public favoring the likable face of mediocrity over the less likable one of meritocracy. Of course, this is on the assumption that intelligence correlates with integrity, honesty, and character, which is often not the case, sadly. It is very possible that the person who gains high position by meritocracy also turns out to be a lying weasel and crook. There have been plenty of those of late on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the Media. Meritocracy of talent doesn’t guarantee charactocracy.
    But many Liberal Wasps seem to be under the impression that Jews must be better in every way because they’re smarter and had to work harder than Wasps after WWII to make the climb. If Alan Dershowitz is to be believed(and he sounds credible on this account), it was tougher for him to find a good job even though he graduated near the top of his class than Wasps who graduated with less sterling records. Given that the likes of Dan Quayle became Senator and likes of George W. Bush became not only governor but president, it seems Wasps did get a lot of breaks(and grew weak and mediocre over the years). And given how so many ‘Aryan’ patriarchs shielded their sons by pulling strings to place them in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, the only kind of honor many of them know must be the honor-among-thieves. This is a bit odd considering that George H.W. Bush(like John F. Kennedy) served in World War II with genuine honor. Why didn’t he expect the same from his son? Did the Wasps go soft in the postwar period? Of course, Jewish elites today are just as bad. How did Jared Kushner get into Harvard? At any rate, the behavior of even highly intelligent people in the Deep State and elite institutions would indicate that higher IQ doesn’t necessarily correlate with commitment to truth, integrity, or honor.

    Anyway, if QUIZ SHOW wanted to make the point that what looks like gold can be fool’s gold, it chose the wrong real-life story. Whatever Charles Van Doren was, he was no golden boy. If anything, he was physically LESS APPEALING than even Stempel who certainly was no looker. Indeed, given what Van Doren really looked like, one is tempted to believe he craved publicity to compensate for the fact that he didn’t look like the classic handsome ‘Aryan’ Wasp. He looked like a troll doll. From certain angles, he even looks like a semi-Negroid, a mulatto. Did his mother cheat on her husband and have a kid with a octaroon?

    He was not a good-looking guy. He looks like William Macy in FARGO with an Afro. He looks like a cross between Joe Piscopo and the guy in ERASERHEAD.
    Just look at him. There was no way millions of Americans back then found him handsome and dashing as QUIZ SHOW would have us believe. Indeed, it’s likely that if he really were good-looking and popular with the girls, he would have stayed away from TV and went out on more dates.

    Another thing that the movie overlooks is the fact that Charles’ father, Mark Van Doren, was a leftist who wrote for radical magazine The Nation. Also, he was once a film critic, which means that he wasn’t merely a stuffy literary type and snob as the movie makes him out to be. Given the political leanings of the Van Doren family, the real reason why Goodwin went easy on Charles could have been political and ideological than out of awe of Wasp refinement and good manners. According to Wikipedia: “(Mark)Van Doren helped (Allen)Ginsberg avoid jail time in June 1949 by testifying on his behalf when Ginsberg was arrested as an accessory to crimes carried out by Herbert Huncke and others.” If Mark Van Doren has a soft spot for the likes of Allen Ginsburg, he couldn’t have been the stuff-shirt character in the movie. Because of evasions and simplifications like this, QUIZ SHOW cannot be real art but, at best, like SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER(that has almost NOTHING to do with the actual story), a more respectable morality tale that ultimately fails at its own game because it has too many ethical issues of its own.

  171. Anon[143] • Disclaimer says:

    Siskel on the Wasps on air:

    Siskel on the Wasps off air:

  172. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:

    QUIZ SHOW is dishonest with its misdirection about how the game was rigged to reward Gentile(esp Wasp) contestants with more money over their Jewish counterparts. Thus, we get the impression that Gentiles profited over Jews. But in fact, such favoritism was to ensure that the Jewish big-shots who run the show will rake in more money from the duped Gentiles. As white goyim are more likely to root for one of their own, many more are likely to tune in if a white golden boy is shown to be winning over Jews. But it’s all just a hustle as the REAL MONEY flows from the sucker gentile audience to the coffers of Jewish moguls.

    It’s like, if slot machines were rigged in Las Vegas to favor white gentiles over slightly over Jews and if Ad campaigns showed white gentiles with the biggest jackpots, who would be the real winner? Gentiles? No, it would be the Jewish owners of the casinos who would be suckering EVEN MORE white gentile suckers to come and try their luck.

  173. Adûnâi says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    This question has always fascinated me. What should be prioritized – pure pragmatic survival or glorious acts of valour? My rational mind understands that even the disgusting German PoWs rounded about have a point – by surviving, the possibility for a rebirth is preserved. Whereas all those acts of angelic courage only make sense in our material world when there is posterity to sing songs about them…

    Women and cowards live on. They always do. So why can’t we dream of that bright honour?

    91,000 captured in Stalingrad. 262,000 in Operation Bagration. 80,000 in Königsberg. 480,000 in Berlin.

    And yet, the warriors of the Empire of Japan knew how to die.

    Guam. Strength: 18.657 (485 captured)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guam_(1944)

    Iwo Jima. 20,530–21,060 troops (216 taken prisoner).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

    Okinawa. 76,000 Japanese soldiers. 20,000 Okinawan conscripts (more than 7,000 captured (including Okinawans)).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

    But where is Japan now? And where is Germany? Dead and gone all the same they are.

  174. @Alden

    Yes, Wikipedia is not a credible source on anything. Thank God we still have books.

  175. Adûnâi: “But where is Japan now? And where is Germany? Dead and gone all the same they are.”

    Evolution decides which organism is better by selecting the one that survives. If suicide tactics, dreams of honor and glory, and the like were really that effective in preserving races and the cultures they generate, I think there’d be a lot more instances of units employing such methods. The desire to use such methods varies from person to person and may even vary by race. Germany had a suicide squadron similar to the Japanese kamikazes, but it wasn’t much used.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_Squadron

    Interestingly, one of the pilots volunteering for this group was Hanna Reitsch, the Nazi aviatrix and winner of the Iron Cross. She, like Magda Goebbels, was idealistic enough to want to die for the cause. By dying, such women often don’t pass on their genes. This differential selection helps account for the relative rarity of the attitude.

  176. @Trevor Lynch

    That is exactly why I am asking. I look forward to it. Glad Mr. Unz is hosting your work. Thank you.

  177. Stempel has unalloyed hostility to Van Doren, referring to him as an “uncircumcised prick.”

    It’s not a given that Charles Lincoln Van Doren was not genitally reduced aka circumcised. He was born into the upper classes in New England in 1926, and in Manhattan.

    What percentage of White goyim born in Manhattan in the 1920s, were subject to what might more properly be called non-consensual neonatal male genital reduction assignment?

    As re the reference to it in the film. They love to throw those “circumcision” referencess into the faces of their audience, to remind them of their own reduced genital set.

  178. Anonymous[380] • Disclaimer says:

    The master knows.

  179. “Per the 1860 census, only a small fraction of Americans owned slaves; max 5% — of course the percentage of Southerners who owned slaves was higher, but still quite a small minority — also slave ownership was concentrated in what some call the ‘Plantation Class’ — slaves were fairly expensive, not only to buy, but to keep: housing, food, clothing, etc — they were an economic asset, but they had to ‘earn their keep’, otherwise they weren’t worth owning — now, did it really make sense to subject fairly expensive economic assets to brutal physical mistreatment that could render them unable to work and hence ‘earn their keep’? — there was a LOT of what I will call horrendous violent and in the end gratuitous mistreatment of slaves in that movie — the story could have been told just as effectively without all, or so much, of that — but the black director, Steve McQueen, chose not only to include it, but to feature it.”

    I love film, even as a conservative, I have to admit from Hollywood and the entertainment industry can and have turned out some very wonderful films.

    “Twelve Years . . .”

    I think for two reasons:

    1. It is a fantastic story of what freedom means. And it is told in very stark terms of having freedom and then quite inexplicably beyond all reason losing it in an instant. In a single moment, a simple dinner destroys this man’s entire life, family and meaning. It is in every way the Declaration of Independence”, the “American Dream”, the value of the Constitutional protections, the value of citizenship and all that comes with it. As a film that describes what it means to be a US citizen, few come close for the reasons stated above.

    2. The performance of Chiwetel Ejiofor is a performance that transcends any award, including the Academy Awards. That performance is unmatched in all of subtltey and outcry. There is no way to actually describe that performance, but it is in my view a wonderful review of the complexities of human existence. I say that about a performance that had a slew of great performances and I am sure were part and parcel to that of Mr. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s. But he absolutely carried that film on his being on our behalf. I say that in complete recognition that nearly every role was ‘shatteringly’ powerful. The wives of the plantation owners — and how central they are to plantation life, even more commanding in than the men. So many complex performances as individuals as ensemble —

    The deeply vexing performance of Alfre Woodard’s frightening convincing rhetorical contention of being mistress to that of mere slave – chilling – I had to fight not be convinced that her choices were fact quite appropriate — and fight is the wrong word because she made perfect sense. And that is deeply painful to admit — survival over my moral codex.

    The beauty of the film is that it horrifies not by the violence but by the circumstances, and the choices people make or are forced to make in the world of US slavery. I have a reviewers copy and I have not cannot watch it a second time. This is the most important film of this decade. Not because it’s about slavery. But because it is about us in every way.

    And anyone who does not come away from viewing that film with a deeper appreciation of what this country means and has yet to become is either too young or still hiding in the shadows of what citizenship means as opposed to what it is and can be.

    And the answer is not importing a bunch of foreigners in some bizarre compromise

    — sure there’s some horrible violence, but that is sauce trimmings to the meal.

    As for your comments about how many people owned slaves — uhhhh, ok The record indicates that throughout the country roughly 8-11%, some 4,000,000 human beings were treated as cattle in a country that has as foundation a declaration about the natural right endowed by a creator to be free — tragic.

  180. As for your comments about how many people owned slaves — uhhhh, ok The record indicates that throughout the country roughly 8-11%, some 4,000,000 human beings were treated as cattle in a country that has as foundation a declaration about the natural right endowed by a creator to be free — tragic.

    It was tragic because of the founding ideals. If US had been found on different ideals, it would hardly have been tragic as slavery was commonplace all around the world, esp in Africa.

    Also, blacks came to believe slavery is ‘evil’ only because of white influence. Name one African people who waged a war on their own people to free another people from slavery.

  181. @Carolyn Yeager

    The Hitler Fan Club members are the stupid imbeciles of our age.

  182. “Also, blacks came to believe slavery is ‘evil’ only because of white influence. Name one African people who waged a war on their own people to free another people from slavery.”

    I think you will have to do some homework here. Few societies recognized slavery as any form of “good”. And the narratives of slave revolts, slave escapes make that very very clear. Benefit for the salve holder but generally recognized as something to avoid being on the caught end of.

    [MORE]

    In the US what this question even more tragic is the hypocrisy and double down by the use of christian faith to defend that hypocrisy is a testament to the founders cowardice and it established a foundation by which such hypocrisy would repeatedly justified. The founders were certainly astute enough to know that it simply could not stand.
    ———————————–

    Now the idea that blacks own people — based on blackness is just a tad offkilt. Whites fought whites , yellows fought yellows, and if they were tangerine colored humans with different civilizations no doubt they would have a history of warfare between them. In fact, your comment grants that blacks had civilizations as did whites who on occasion had falling outs and resolved political or social disputes as did Europeans, Asians and native americans.

    The suggestion that blacks saw slavery as evil because of whites is bizarre and wrong – nonsense. But it’s worth taking the time to note that among african civilizations, slavery was generally understood and practiced very differently and it was not based on skin color —–

    The slave did and could eventually be incorporated into the society in which he or she was captured. What we did in the US cannot be compared to what was practiced elsewhere as you are attempting to do. Furthermore i have to reject on its face the constant attempt to escape what we did here by universalizing the issue. Because at the end of the day — what so and so did over there is a so what here.

    What we have to install meaning on blackness is the issue, not Muslims in Tripoli, not the Greeks, the not the French, Germans, or the aliens but we the people of the US.

    _______________________________________-

    I am quite confident that I could find several wars over who captured who on the African continent. However, that is wholly inconsequential:

    1. The issue is what occurred in the US.

    and

    2. The Civil War’s cause was slavery — but the war was fought to keep the nation whole — freeing slaves was an after thought, an opportunity and a forgone conclusion as slaves simply walked off plantations when the war began.

    ———————-

    l’est we skip to the matter of blacks who owned slaves. We now understand that most of those recorded ownerships are blacks purchasing their family members. But the attempt to use such circumstances to ameliorate hypocrisy must be met with

    And that should not have been necessary or legal either.

    ———————-

    In my view you leave that film trying to justify slavery in the US — let’s just say you have larger issues.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  183. Hibernian says:
    @Alden

    “The term WASP was created in the 1920s by Jews as a pejorative slur against old stock White Americans.”

    I’ve seen it credited to E. Digby Baltzell of the U. of Pennsylvania, who was one himself, and who commuted by bicycle from tony Rittenhouse Square to the Penn campus. He had a bunch of Jewish students. I think he coined the term in the 50s or 60s.

    From:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

    “Before WASP came into use in the 1960s the term “Anglo Saxon” served some of the same purposes.”

    • Replies: @S
  184. Hibernian says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Scandinavians tend to be idealistic and pacifistic, Germans pro-German, and the Irish anti-British. That’s why the Midwest opposed WW1 and wasn’t that enthusiastic about WW2, at least the European part of it. Southerners have a lot of great qualities but their over enthusiasm for war has been ruthlessly exploited by the Northeastern establishment.

  185. @EliteCommInc.

    Gimme a break with the virtue signaling.

  186. “Gimme a break with the virtue signaling.”

    I am concerned that you are using the term incorrectly. Virtue signaling is intended to convey the use of virtue for personal positioning. That would not be the case in observing historical fact. The founders were intelligent men — they were not perfect. And on the issue of skin color — they failed. i embrace their failure along with their successes as part of the legacy of the US.

    In this regard your misuse of the term to denigrate my me would in fact be a case of virtue signaling as the intent is to demonstrate just how above board your are minding me (incorrectly as it may be) on the matter.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  187. Nation over freedom for the black population

    It was a matter of choice. If those that understood that maintaining slavery was a complete contradiction to the very purpose of the revolution had stood. The belief is there would have been no country. Fear of disunity caused them to make a choice against the very core of their position. That is just historical fact.
    —–

    If in fact I was virtue signaling I might call into question the integrity of the founders and call them mere scoundrels and traitors to their mother country which spent so much on blood and treasure to ensure their success only to be repaid by treason over the issue of housing and making sure soldiers had enough beer.

    Virtue signal:

    as a conservative I find their conduct that or mere bounders.

  188. @EliteCommInc.

    And on the issue of skin color — they failed. i embrace their failure along with their successes as part of the legacy of the US.

    They failed their white kin more than blacks. Even though slavery could be cruel, the slave trade turned out to be a huge boon for blacks. Blacks were enslaved by men of a civilization with a conscience. Also, via contact with whites, blacks got access to the most advanced civilization in the world. If anything, blacks who sold blacks to whites ended up worse than blacks who were sold to whites.

    However, white elites failed their white kin big time. Once blacks were freed, they posed a threat to lumpen whites without power and privilege. The stronger and more aggressive blacks could do serious harm to them. At least in the past, white elites were morally race-ist enough to understand this and tolerated lumpen whites’ use of brutal means to keep black savagery at bay. But eventually, white elites abandoned lumpen whites and enforced ‘equal rights’ to all. But equal rights between whites and blacks don’t lead to equality but black domination over white as blacks are naturally tougher and more aggressive due to evolutionary factors.

    The problem is white elites of the past were not race-ist enough. If they were, they would have thought, “You know, bringing black slaves will be a boon in the short-run for our economy, but they will be a huge problem in the long because they are so different from us. In the long run, they will beat up our great great great grandsons and take our great great great granddaughters infected with jungle fever. So, how about we pick out own cotton even if our economy will grow slower? In the long run, it will turn out better for us.” But they prioritized materialism over race-ism. They overlooked the long-term consequences of racial differences in favor of short term material profit. In the long run, the biggest victims of black slavery were not blacks. If anything, despite the cruelty of slavery, blacks gained much by contact with whites. They went from savagery to access to civilization. In contrast, white masses got abandoned by white elites(who now suck up to Jewish supremacists) and are now a bunch of drug-addled cuckeroos under black supremacist domination. It’s like Lincoln the Great Emancipator freed the blacks from slavery but also wanted to free whites from looming biological slavery. His idea was, “I used to chop down trees, but for every tree I chopped down, a strong Negro could chop down three. Just look at those Negroes. They are more muscular and got bigger dongs. They are gonna kick our asses and take our women. We have to send them back to Africa or give them their own nation.” But he was assassinated and his warnings were not heeded.

  189. S says:
    @Hibernian

    I’ve seen it credited to E. Digby Baltzell of the U. of Pennsylvania, who was one himself..

    Thanks for the interesting article.

    While it does have Baltzell ‘popularizing’ the term (if true, shame on him! 😉 ), a term used more and more for anyone of a north-western Europe background, it records Andrew Hacker first publishing the term’s close equivelant in 1957. Hacker’s father was (apparently) Jewish, and he himself was married to a Jewish woman.

    If Baltzell and Hacker had each come up with, published, and ‘popularized’, a Jewish rough equivelant for that people’s elites in the US, ie Jewish American Person of Power, ie J.A.P.P., or simply, a ‘Japp’ in the vernacular, as opposed to the much more nuanced in meaning ‘Jap’ (Jewish American Princess), while I still in general wouldn’t care much for the use of slurs, at least there wouldn’t be the glaring hypocrisy about the entire thing. 🙂

    Should of just left it at ‘Anglo-Saxon’ as it always had been.

    The first published mention of the term “WASP” was provided by political scientist Andrew Hacker in 1957, referring to the class of Americans that held “national power in its economic, political, and social aspects”; here the “W” stands for “wealthy” rather than “white”.

  190. Priss Factor: “[Lincoln’s] idea was, “I used to chop down trees, but for every tree I chopped down, a strong Negro could chop down three. Just look at those Negroes. They are more muscular and got bigger dongs. They are gonna kick our asses and take our women. We have to send them back to Africa or give them their own nation.” But he was assassinated and his warnings were not heeded.”

    It’s ridiculous to think that Lincoln wanted to send the negroes anywhere. If he wanted to do that he would not have called for them to be made citizens and given the vote, as he did in his last public address before being assassinated. Besides this, most on the right who refer to Lincoln’s alleged wish to “expel” the negroes don’t realize that the only kind of deportation ever under consideration was to be voluntary. Lincoln never had the slightest desire to round up the negroes and ship them off whether they wanted to go or not, let alone a plan to do so.

    “Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
    -Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln–Douglas debates (1858), slipping up and actually being “honest”, for once.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  191. Hibernian says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Lincoln could be sympathetic to Catholics or anti-Catholic; he could be racist or ahead of his time on race. Remember, he was a lawyer and a politician.

  192. Hhsiii says:
    @Yapius the 2nd

    Van Doren was not a farm boy from the Midwest.

    One note I never thought rang true was the assistant producer supposedly knowing who the Van Dorens were. “You mean as in Van Doren Van Doren?” They weren’t especially famous as an intellectual family. At least by the general public.

    • Replies: @Yapius the 2nd
  193. “They failed their white kin more than blacks. Even though slavery could be cruel, the slave trade turned out to be a huge boon for blacks. Blacks were enslaved by men of a civilization with a conscience.”

    I have addressed the core of this in a previous comment regarding slavery. Among the african civilizations it was not an uncommon practice for slaves to be fully incorporated into the society. The US had no such practice. Your assumptions about the moral, legal and social practices among african civilizations are incorrect. Your perspective is that of a colonial and self proclaimed. It’s akin to the black child who upon being raised in a colonial homestead comes to praise her situation as benign and endowed by God — not because it is accurate, but because she doesn’t know any better. For example i used to marvel about the Greeks and what they brought to us. And then I discovered that the Greeks actually got their foundations from studying philosophy of blacks in Africa. The Kingdom of Cush was a complex society with laws, moral coding and social customs and definite order and structure. It is not as if Europeans invented law or the Romans invented law. It’s more to the reality that we just know more about those civlizations.

    Your assumptions about white skin, I think are premised on against what you don’t know.

    But at least you have parted ways with the virtue signaling assail.

  194. Hibernian: “Lincoln … could be racist or ahead of his time on race. Remember, he was a lawyer and a politician.”

    Ahead of his time?! That’s a fine way to put it! Actually, as I said above in #105, America was full of Christian fanatics during the Civil War, and abolitionism drew its strength from that. His real sentiments were abolitionist, as should be obvious from his actions if not his words, and quite in keeping with those most radical times. Even today’s antifa haven’t started murdering racists — yet.

    The problem is that people on the right don’t keep in mind that he was a liar. They prefer to dream up fictional histories in which Lincoln had a plan to purge negroes from white society by deporting them forcibly, but was prevented from carrying it out by being assassinated. That’s just nonsense. Over 150 years after his death, this same expert liar is still fooling people, aided and abetted by so-called leaders like Jared Taylor, another one who likes to propagate this myth.

  195. ” “You know, bringing black slaves will be a boon in the short-run for our economy, but they will be a huge problem in the long because they are so different from us. In the long run, they will beat up our great great great grandsons and take our great great great granddaughters infected with jungle fever.”

    Or use some basic sense and ensure that your employees are well treated, educated such that when they enter society they will be knowledgeable and capable citizens. As it is given the hurdles placed against blacks, hurdles designed to enhance difference reinforce difference even when artificial and benign, you create a dynamic that plagues and for which the dominant society only has itself to blame.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Phillis-Wheatley

    Note that in the reference that Miss Wheatley thought Cain was black and the blacks the descendents of Vain and as such destined to be slaves. She was taught that by her white captors. And yet that is a complete and total lie. We don’t have a clue what the “mark” of Cain was. But the poet Wheatley repeated it because she simply did not know any better. You might want to take a look at the african civilizations before making such peculiar, and unsupported assumptions, about how slavery in the US was good for blacks – because white were in your mind decent and kindly —-

    The very reality of Miss Wheatley against the backdrop of all slaves contradicts your premise as even she apparently provided some rebuke as to how blacks were treated by whites, despite her warped view from how she was raised and trained.

  196. @Hhsiii

    Yeah, I agree with that. He was a rather minor poet. I guess he was the son of a professor, but the professor was originally from a farm in the Midwest. He was not high caste in other words,

  197. Subatomic says:

    Except Redford either claims, or has stated that he is half Jewish I believe. If that’s the case, he is not a true WASP. Whether it was his mother or father who was Jewish in the family goes along way in understanding his acceptance by fellow Jew’s as either Jewish or WASP. Mother yes, father no……

  198. lysias says:
    @ChrisZ

    I can recall having a childlike faith in the integrity of quiz shows at the time. At that time, I really was a child, but I suspect many adults shared that faith.

  199. ChrisZ says:

    Thanks for the reply Lysias. That’s quite a distinguished name.

    I appreciate your candor about faith in the integrity of quiz shows. But would you say that a “crisis” of that faith would amount to a “national loss of innocence”? That was Redford’s claim at the time of the film’s release. It strikes me as overly grand.

  200. @Alden

    I cited Wikipedia because it is readily accessible. I have also read Baltzell’s books, and they confirm what Wikipedia says on the subject of the acronym WASP.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?