Movie Review: 'People I Know'
10 September 2004
A White Nationalist Classic.
If I had unlimited resources, the first explicitly White Nationalist movie I would produce would be a dramatization of the corrupt and cynical way in which the inner party dominated racial extortion coalition operates.
It would vividly show how sexual vice is used to control media celebrities and politicians, how violence is used when necessary, and perhaps most important, how the constituent racial and ethnic groups in this coalition all use each other and basically hate each other.
But miraculously, an outer party liberal - Robert Redford - has produced it for me.
It is called "People I Know."
And it is the only truly explicit White Nationalist movie in existence. Braveheart may come close, but it is a Scottish nationalist movie - ardently separatist in its operation - which although uniting Scottish and Irish separatists in a uniquely modern and un-historical way - still involves fighting between groups of Christian Whites.
"People I Know" is an overt and explicit attack on the racial extortion coalition.
In some respects, it is similar to "Eyes Wide Shut", but is much more explicit. The average soccer mom would miss entirely the ethnic driver behind the system of social control revealed in "Eyes Wide Shut."
The "J word" pops up in the middle of "People I Know" and is used with increasing frequency through the climactic conclusion. You even get to see an inner party cabal in action - complete with billionaires, media barons, a Rabbi and bands of armed izzy bodyguards.
It is available for rental at Hollywood video (and I assume, Blockbuster) and available for sale on EBAY for from $7 to $15.
The protagonist of the movie, played by Al Pacino, is a public relations crisis manager specializing in covering up scandals for movie stars and politicians. He is an "old school" inner party "civil-rights" liberal. His passion and his cause is setting up a fund raising dinner to raise money for the legal defense of some Haitian black illegals threatened with deportation.
He gets a call from his one remaining client, a movie star (played by Ryan O'Neil) to bail out a young starlet/prostitute who managed to get herself arrested.
It turns out that the young starlet was on a mission for the actor (who wants to run for a U.S. Senate seat) to infiltrate and photograph the goings on at a super model pleasure palace run by an inner party billionaire named Scharansky for the purpose of corrupting and then controlling politicians (lowering their cost and increasing the predictability of their votes).
The actor wants the film because Scharansky is supporting some other candidate for the Senate seat he wants, and the actor needs the goods on Scharansky's pleasure palace in order to force Scharansky to shift his substantial support and money to his own campaign effort.
Unaware of all this, Pacino's IP character visits one Reverend Block, a black leader in Harlem to get him to attend the fundrasing dinner - at which point the hostility between black and inner party surfaces explicitly.
He next visits Scharansky for the purpose of persuading him to attend the fund raising dinner for Haitian immigrants, and here we are informed that Scharansky could care less about Haitian immigrants, hates Reverend Block - who he accuses of calling the IP "hooked nosed devils" - and desperately wants to know where the young actress' "toy" containing the incriminating pictures might be.
Pacino's character tirelessly tries to convince people to come to his fundraiser, and despite the fact that none of these liberals cares about Haitian immigrants, and almost all say they will not attend, in the end every one of them attends because of the opportunity to work the rest of the crowd for money, influence and glamor.
The cynicism at the party - scratching one another's eyes out in private conversations while striking happy, multi-culti poses for the camera is quite revealing, juxtaposed as it is with old photographs of 1960's civil rights marches and pictures of MLK delivering his famous IP ghosted speeches.
While it is always hazardous to speculate about the subjective intentions of the producer, I suspect that these photos of the 1960s civil rights era were intended to shame a liberal audience into rejecting the cynicism and elitism of modern multi-culturalism and embrace the "old idealism" of the cause.
But when viewed objectively, the 1960's civil rights movement is made to appear equally cynical by its juxtaposition with the attitudes and behavior of its current standard bearers.
When the movie ends, I am left sitting on the sofa wondering exactly how and why such a movie could ever be made in the first place. It is a clear threat gesture. The film played only in a few "art houses" in New York and Los Angeles before being released on DVD. While expensive acting talent was employed, there was essentially no ad budget, and the public at large is completely unaware of this film's existence.
It looks like Redford and his backers (the outer party faction in the racial extortion coalition) has been angered by the Sharanskys of the world and has produced this movie as a warning shot across the bow, so to speak.
It is a frank confession that the racial extortion coalition is a fragile one, and that while the blacks have been unhappy with their subordinate role for many years, the appearance of this film tells me that the outer party liberals have now joined them.
The fact that this movie was made is good news for us.
Buy a copy and enjoy.