American History X
by H. Becker
The movie was written by McKenna (presumably Gentile), and put out by New
Line (Jewish owned). It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall
at the production meetings as they tried to balance the need to make an
interesting movie (letting a Nazi make his case) against the need for
Semitical Correctness.... I truly wonder where the writer's opinions lie.
The indications are that he has a good deal more sympathy for the skins'
case than the Jews' because the former is strongly drawn, while the latter
is barely sketched.
The guts of the movie are the speeches by Derek. Of these speeches, the
best is his dinner-table destruction of the Jewish cant put out by the
Elliot Gould character courting his mother in which he demolishes the Jew's
inevitable excuse explanations of poverty and racism for Rodney King and the
L.A. riots. Edward Norton is a fine actor, and is quite persuasive as a
strong and principled skinhead. He is much less plausible as a post-prison
reformed soul, but that is a script problem. We are supposed to believe
that the principles he stated and defended at the risk of his life have been
changed because he encountered a funny Black man and some corrupt White
racists in prison. This failure of characterization was probably made
necessary by the dictates of Semitical Correctness at New Line. I'm sure
McKenna realizes that Derek would be nothing but entrenched in his beliefs
by a stint in prison.
In fact, at no point are the racist beliefs of the main characters Derek and
younger brother Daniel challenged. By challenged, I mean shown to be logically or
evidentially impaired. Instead, they are attacked modern-style, by
fem-think. We see kicked-to-the-curb Gould saying "I'm sorry" to Derek's
mother, his tragic gaze suggesting his horror at a son so far gone. Perhaps
the Jews at New Line think fifty years of maceration in their agitprop have
the rest of us accepting their "perfect and persecuted" self-portrait.
Perhaps they really do think that raised eyebrows, shaken heads and baleful
stares and speech codes and prison sentences are strictest refutation.
Hell, simple coherence -- let alone logic -- seems too much to ask of
Hollywood these days.
Gould was perfect casting. At once patronizing and effeminate, he is the
precise foil to Norton's master-of-my-own-house masculinity. It's not just
that a poorly educated skin makes mincemeat of him in argument, but that his
Jewish dogma is so ugly. In Norton's combative integrity we see the Old
America, made up of free and responsible White men. In Gould we see the
coming World Slave State, where the thinking is done for us, and it remains
only to Accept.
The part that bodes thinking on is that this movie is about an inch from
being quaint. As in, Oh, how cute, that little white mouse is crouching in
the corner, baring its teeth in self-defense!, as our ugly Jewish hand
reaches in to pick it up to feed it to the snake. Isn't that precious.
Such stirring words and sculpted pecs! What a man he might have been two
hundred years ago! But thanks to TV, we are all Jews now....
P.S. The same day I watched X, I saw Matrix, featuring Keanu Reeves,
miscast as an actor. Anyway, before these rentals started, we had to sit
through a bunch of previews of other New Line releases, including the
anti-White, anti-Fifties movie Pleasantville, and John Waters' film Pecker,
about "white trash" -- the slur you're allowed, I mean encouraged, to use,
as opposed to the holy N word. And one of the sound tracks featured Rage
Against the Machine, which, if you're unfamiliar, is screechy Mexican
supremacist noise. So, like a conservative, I will close with the old, old
plaint: Hollywood/New Line are hypocrites; they love hate movies and hate
music -- as long as the object is White. No, maybe I'll let Hitler have the
last word: It is not enough that you believe -- you must fight.
|