Jake Featherston
05-14-2006, 03:48 PM
Link to National Vanguard original article (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1536)
Some Thoughts on the Film 'Cold Mountain'
by Kevin Riley O'Keeffe
Ever since I was a small child in the early 1970s, when my parents would take me to see worthy childhood films such as Disney's (pre-Eisner) "Bambi," or an animated (and terrifying, at that age) version of "Jack and the Beanstalk," I have always been something of a cinema buff. Needless to say, this is a somewhat frustrating identity to have, within the context of the alien subversive control of the "American" film industry. Every so often a special treat like "Braveheart" or "Fight Club" does make it past the Semitic censors, but, for the most part, one has to read quite a few movie reviews in order to find anything worth seeing.
To that end, I have read numerous reviews of the new "Civil War" (or more accurately, the War of Northern Aggression) film, "Cold Mountain," based on the novel by Charles Frazier. Within those reviews, I have noted a perplexing and persistent pattern. Each review seems to be essentially the same, even to the extent of employing extremely similar phrases, as if some sort of (Jewish?) party line were being imposed from on high. A couple of weeks ago, I watched an episode of "Ebert & Roeper" (both of whom are Jewish), during which they went to great lengths to praise "Cold Mountain" on the one hand, yet to describe it as "uneven" and "frustrating" on the other, although the substance of these criticisms was never articulated. As I recall, they gave the film their "two thumbs up" vote of confidence, but did so with evident reluctance and reservations.
Subsequently, I read about "Cold Mountain" in the inane gossip column penned by a person calling herself "Liz Smith." In the Friday, Dec. 26th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, "Smith" writes, "'Cold Mountain' is both epic and superficial. The mix made me miserable." She further went on to discourage her readers from seeing this film, while never recanting her claim that it was "epic." While I can't recall precisely what Messrs. Ebert and Roeper said about Cold Mountain, it struck me as very similar to "Smith's" remarks, as well as to one or two other reviews of "Cold Mountain" I have recently read. What would cause such seemingly similar, and internally contradictory, reviews of a Hollywood film to emerge almost simultaneously?
As it so happens, my father saw "Cold Mountain" on Christmas Day and raved about how it was "better than 'Gone With the Wind'" (as an interesting sidebar, during a revival of "Gone With the Wind" a couple of years ago, the San Jose Mercury News film review described it as being "politically, just slightly to the left of David Duke," thus making it clear what our Jewish commissars think about arguably the single greatest pre-War, English-language work of cinematic fiction). As my father's tastes are similar to my own, I took my wife to see "Cold Mountain" on Saturday, Dec. 27th, and was very pleased with it. I also figured out why film reviewers have been ordered to ambiguously discourage people from seeing it.
Firstly, the reason film reviewers had to say nice things about "Cold Mountain," despite their not wanting us to see it, is because the movie is just so very well made, interesting, romantic and exciting, that to fail to acknowledge some significant aspect of its innate quality would have the effect of undermining the credibility of the reviewer. This is much like how Roger Ebert would tell you "Triumph of the Will" is a very good technical film, even though he hates the idea of anyone ever seeing it, simply because in the event you do see it, you will realize he was lying, had he claimed it was just so much rubbish. Thus his ability to influence the cinematic culture (which is to say, an important aspect of the opinion-molding industry) would be commensurately diminished.
Perhaps more to the point, the reason the Jews do not want you to see this movie is that in an entire 2.5 hour film about that tragic, fratricidal war, there is scarcely a single iota of anti-Southern, anti-Confederate or even (remarkably) anti-White propaganda of any kind! It's not that this movie is overtly unPC; merely that it never makes any effort to be PC. In fact, other than one or two very brief appearances by a Confederate Cherokee soldier (many Cherokees did prefer the Confederacy to the Union, and fought accordingly, as it so happens), an unconscious Black woman, and some thieving, escaped slaves who were similarly mute (as well as needlessly cruel to the film's protagonist), the entire cast is White (or, in the case of actress Natalie Portman and perhaps some others, Jews-pretending-to-be-White). This, in and of itself, borders on the amazing for a mainstream film about that controversial period of the American branch of Aryan history.
There were a couple very slight nods to cosmopolitan trendiness, such as the protagonist's objection to fighting a war "for the rich man's slaves" (a sentiment not entirely without merit, however). Or the fact that a perfectly admirable character, who had certain earthy, working class characteristics that fashion-conscious yuppie snobs might confuse with a sort of buffoonery, and who had been Black in the original novel, was portrayed as a White woman in this film adaptation. One rather supposes that some Jew, or one of his treasonous henchmen, dictated that it was unacceptable for negative attributes to be ascribed to a character that was Black. In point of fact, the Aryan race could use more women made of the no-nonsense material that Renee Zellweger's character displayed, but one can hardly expect a Jewish Manhattanite who's never had to do his own grocery shopping, let alone plough a field, to grasp something so obvious as that (thankfully).
"Cold Mountain" is, along with "The Return of the King," one of perhaps only two spiritually healthy films to come out of Hollywood in 2003. If you enjoy cinema, and look forward to the day when Aryans are back in charge of this medium we invented, "Cold Mountain" will be a welcome relief from the barrage of degenerate, multiculturalist filth which passes itself of as "entertainment," as our once-glorious civilization prepares to renew itself.
Some Thoughts on the Film 'Cold Mountain'
by Kevin Riley O'Keeffe
Ever since I was a small child in the early 1970s, when my parents would take me to see worthy childhood films such as Disney's (pre-Eisner) "Bambi," or an animated (and terrifying, at that age) version of "Jack and the Beanstalk," I have always been something of a cinema buff. Needless to say, this is a somewhat frustrating identity to have, within the context of the alien subversive control of the "American" film industry. Every so often a special treat like "Braveheart" or "Fight Club" does make it past the Semitic censors, but, for the most part, one has to read quite a few movie reviews in order to find anything worth seeing.
To that end, I have read numerous reviews of the new "Civil War" (or more accurately, the War of Northern Aggression) film, "Cold Mountain," based on the novel by Charles Frazier. Within those reviews, I have noted a perplexing and persistent pattern. Each review seems to be essentially the same, even to the extent of employing extremely similar phrases, as if some sort of (Jewish?) party line were being imposed from on high. A couple of weeks ago, I watched an episode of "Ebert & Roeper" (both of whom are Jewish), during which they went to great lengths to praise "Cold Mountain" on the one hand, yet to describe it as "uneven" and "frustrating" on the other, although the substance of these criticisms was never articulated. As I recall, they gave the film their "two thumbs up" vote of confidence, but did so with evident reluctance and reservations.
Subsequently, I read about "Cold Mountain" in the inane gossip column penned by a person calling herself "Liz Smith." In the Friday, Dec. 26th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, "Smith" writes, "'Cold Mountain' is both epic and superficial. The mix made me miserable." She further went on to discourage her readers from seeing this film, while never recanting her claim that it was "epic." While I can't recall precisely what Messrs. Ebert and Roeper said about Cold Mountain, it struck me as very similar to "Smith's" remarks, as well as to one or two other reviews of "Cold Mountain" I have recently read. What would cause such seemingly similar, and internally contradictory, reviews of a Hollywood film to emerge almost simultaneously?
As it so happens, my father saw "Cold Mountain" on Christmas Day and raved about how it was "better than 'Gone With the Wind'" (as an interesting sidebar, during a revival of "Gone With the Wind" a couple of years ago, the San Jose Mercury News film review described it as being "politically, just slightly to the left of David Duke," thus making it clear what our Jewish commissars think about arguably the single greatest pre-War, English-language work of cinematic fiction). As my father's tastes are similar to my own, I took my wife to see "Cold Mountain" on Saturday, Dec. 27th, and was very pleased with it. I also figured out why film reviewers have been ordered to ambiguously discourage people from seeing it.
Firstly, the reason film reviewers had to say nice things about "Cold Mountain," despite their not wanting us to see it, is because the movie is just so very well made, interesting, romantic and exciting, that to fail to acknowledge some significant aspect of its innate quality would have the effect of undermining the credibility of the reviewer. This is much like how Roger Ebert would tell you "Triumph of the Will" is a very good technical film, even though he hates the idea of anyone ever seeing it, simply because in the event you do see it, you will realize he was lying, had he claimed it was just so much rubbish. Thus his ability to influence the cinematic culture (which is to say, an important aspect of the opinion-molding industry) would be commensurately diminished.
Perhaps more to the point, the reason the Jews do not want you to see this movie is that in an entire 2.5 hour film about that tragic, fratricidal war, there is scarcely a single iota of anti-Southern, anti-Confederate or even (remarkably) anti-White propaganda of any kind! It's not that this movie is overtly unPC; merely that it never makes any effort to be PC. In fact, other than one or two very brief appearances by a Confederate Cherokee soldier (many Cherokees did prefer the Confederacy to the Union, and fought accordingly, as it so happens), an unconscious Black woman, and some thieving, escaped slaves who were similarly mute (as well as needlessly cruel to the film's protagonist), the entire cast is White (or, in the case of actress Natalie Portman and perhaps some others, Jews-pretending-to-be-White). This, in and of itself, borders on the amazing for a mainstream film about that controversial period of the American branch of Aryan history.
There were a couple very slight nods to cosmopolitan trendiness, such as the protagonist's objection to fighting a war "for the rich man's slaves" (a sentiment not entirely without merit, however). Or the fact that a perfectly admirable character, who had certain earthy, working class characteristics that fashion-conscious yuppie snobs might confuse with a sort of buffoonery, and who had been Black in the original novel, was portrayed as a White woman in this film adaptation. One rather supposes that some Jew, or one of his treasonous henchmen, dictated that it was unacceptable for negative attributes to be ascribed to a character that was Black. In point of fact, the Aryan race could use more women made of the no-nonsense material that Renee Zellweger's character displayed, but one can hardly expect a Jewish Manhattanite who's never had to do his own grocery shopping, let alone plough a field, to grasp something so obvious as that (thankfully).
"Cold Mountain" is, along with "The Return of the King," one of perhaps only two spiritually healthy films to come out of Hollywood in 2003. If you enjoy cinema, and look forward to the day when Aryans are back in charge of this medium we invented, "Cold Mountain" will be a welcome relief from the barrage of degenerate, multiculturalist filth which passes itself of as "entertainment," as our once-glorious civilization prepares to renew itself.