(Spielberg's) MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

01.09.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

by Mia T, January 8, 2006

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.⁴

Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000
Mia T, January 3, 2006

THE ALIENS
Mia T, June 9, 1999

 

 

orrowing a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence, to watch Steven Spielberg's Munich is to have a close encounter of the worst kind.

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage, so it seems, matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, Spielberg has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now defend. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

 

Munich is less about Golda Meir avenging the 1972 Munich massacre than it is about George Bush waging the War on Terror. The Munich allusion is key to understanding Spielberg's motivation.⁵

The core of the Spielberg/Leftist anti-War-on-Terror argument is that by fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with this movie, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Steven Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Leni Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Leni Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware. He knows exactly what he is doing; and he wants to do it.

Leni Riefenstahl chronicled Hitler's 1934 Nuremberg rallies in Triumph of the Will, perhaps the most notorious documentary ever filmed. After the war, Riefenstahl excused her effort as pure documentary -- watch for Spielberg to do the same one day -- yet wholesale cut-and-splice was a standard technique: She composited Hitler's motorcade to Munich, for example, from other events and shot the closeups of Nazi leaders in a staged studio sequence.

Riefenstahl insisted that the finished quality of Triumph of the Will came "from her editing, not from any imposition of 'posed shots' or choreography on her part." With her innovative editing techniques, Riefenstahl deliberately and selectively "aestheticized Hitler and the Congress' proceedings. By editing out a shot of Hitler wiping his nose and including instead 'more interesting expressions,'" by eliminating the human, Riefenstahl eliminated the inhuman.

In Munich, similarly, Spielberg humanizes the terrorist, but with techniques far less subtle, (Subtlety is inversely proportional to the intelligence of the audience as perceived by the director, or to the intelligence of the director, or to both.) For sheer power, reach, and ruthlessness if not subtlety, the fascist Riefenstahl operation doesn't hold a candle to the Leftist agitprop machine today.

Hollywood is fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition. In order to shut down this dangerous operation, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood's venues. The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.

5.
THE 'MUNICH' ALLUSION:
THE DANGER OF SPIELBERG AND THE AMERICAN LEFT

 

by Mia T, January 4, 2006

 

 

 

At the time, '96, [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

[T]he legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. [T]hey... went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled.... America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.... I say to [the American people] that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

INTERVIEW-Osama bin Laden-May 1998
(In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.)
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)

Funny that the Movie is called "Munich" since, until about 20 years ago, the very word "Munich" was a synonym for appeasement of evil-doers and moral equivalency, the result of Chamberlain's famous "scrap of paper" in which Hitler promised, in Chamberlain's words, "Peace in our time." Is Speilberg aware of the background of "Munich?

cookcounty

 

unich,' Steven Spielberg's new movie, is less about Golda Meir avenging the 1972 Munich massacre than it is about George Bush waging the War on Terror, which makes it doubly hard to believe that the historical allusion wasn't part of the calculation that went into constructing the title.¹

What was Spielberg thinking? Was he thinking at all?

Had he not read bin Laden's comments about The War in general or about The War and clinton in particular? ²

Why doesn't he realize that the terrorist's impetus is precisely the "Munich" syndrome of appeasement, self-loathing and psychologizing that is practiced so fastidiously by the American Left today?

And why doesn't he see 'Israel' as simply the terrorist's metaphor for us all, for western civilization in its entirety?

If Spielberg and his screenwriter, Tony Kushner, were to hear bin Laden, were really to hear him, they would begin to understand that it is not Israel, not George Bush, but they, the American Left, who are bin Laden's comrades-in-arms. ³

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

inch Sulzberger scurried to the C-SPAN confessional even as the fires raged under the mammoth heap of ash and twisted steel that was once the Twin Towers and 2801 human beings. He had to make certain no one would blame The New York Times....



COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH FOOTNOTES

---

 

1.


Spielberg's not so subtle commentary about our post 9-11 world is the ultimate obscenity:

In the film, an actress playing the prime minister of Israel Golda Meir sees the answer clearly: Strike back! If the terrorists respect no limits in their war against the Jewish people, then the killers and those who direct them should not feel safe anywhere either. She orders her intelligence service -- the Mossad -- to track them down in their European havens and kill them.

HUMANIZE THE TERRORISTS?

If such an order seems vaguely familiar to American audiences, it should. The comparison between Meir's order and the reaction of President Bush when he told rescue workers at ground zero that those who brought down the towers would soon be hearing from Americans is more than obvious.

That sort of blunt threat wasn't well-received in those quarters where our conflict with fundamentalist Islam is seen as a function of America's alleged sins against the world. Rather than seeking out Al Qaeda, some sages told us to look in the mirror if we wanted to see the real bad guys. And that is precisely the message that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner (who shares a writing credit with Eric Roth) seem to be making about Israel in "Munich."

It should be noted that the film has already come in for justified criticism for being primarily based on a book whose primary source was a fraud. Vengeance by George Jonas purported to tell the tale of a disillusioned Mossad agent, but it turned out the man was just a cab driver with an Israeli accent, and not an ex-spy. But even if we discount this, the film still fails its subject matter. That's because the goal here is not merely to wrongly argue that the battle against Palestinian terror is as criminal as anything the terrorists have done; its purpose is also to humanize the terrorists....

But the problem with this film isn't just an obsessive refusal to be judgmental about terrorism or the tedious speechifying that overwhelms the action. There's something even more insidious at play here.

The main character, the Israeli agent Avner (played by Eric Bana), doesn't just loose his marbles because of a mission whose efficacy might well be debated. Spielberg's Avner rejects not merely a policy but Israel itself, which he abandons for the apparently more humane confines of Brooklyn, N.Y.

Spielberg even uses an image of a still-standing World Trade Center to punctuate a scene in which Avner rejects Israel to lead us to falsely think 9/11 might have been avoided had America also abandoned the Jewish state.

That "Munich" would have such an anti-Zionist denouement (in contrast to "Schindler's List," which tearfully concluded with the playing of the song "Jerusalem of Gold") is unsurprising due to Kushner's involvement.

Though primarily known for his extravagantly praised plays about the plight of gays suffering from AIDS, Kushner is also a hardcore left-wing Jewish critic of Israel. He has edited a book of anti-Israel essays, and even told Ha'aretz that Israel's birth was a "mistake" he wished had never happened.

As for the director and prime mover of this project, in the years since the release of "Schindler's List" and his subsequent contributions to Holocaust remembrance projects, Spielberg has become something of a secular Jewish saint. As such, he's apparently worried enough about his image to employ former Middle East peace envoy Dennis Ross to spin for "Munich," in addition to Eyal Arad, a leading Israeli public-relations torpedo who also works for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

They may well succeed but if there was ever a movie that ought to provoke outrage, it is "Munich." The film concludes with a bizarre scene in which the disillusioned Avner daydreams (fantasizes?) about the actual events of the massacre while having sex with his wife. As their coupling reaches its conclusion, we see the bound Israeli athletes slaughtered by their Arab captors.

By this point, a weary audience that has been subjected to many other obvious and heavy-handed clichés so familiar to Kushner's work is forced to wonder whether Avner now sees himself as one of the killers. At the same time, the audience is also being asked to see Israel and the war on terrorism as forces that are literally screwing the world.

Perhaps the fact that "Munich" is such poor entertainment will do more to limit the damage it does than anything said by its critics. But it would be a mistake to let this film pass without a response from those who care about the survival of both Israel and the West.

You don't have to insist that everything Israel or America does to fight terror is wise to understand that the war they're fighting is just. Judging the murderers and those who fight such criminals as morally equivalent is not wisdom. It is, as Steven Spielberg has now shown us, the ultimate obscenity.

Immoral equivalence
Jewish World Review
Dec. 22, 2005 / 21 Kislev, 5766
By Jonathan Tobin

2.

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

DISCUSSION

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

 

I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t


by Mia T, 11.11.05

This legacy confab is in and of itself proof certain of clinton's deeply flawed character, and a demonstration in real time of the way in which the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency.

Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden.

According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

Albright explained that a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the 'accord' and the Peace Prize good-bye.

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off terrorism's global danger.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

 

INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden (may 1998)   In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.   Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.   After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....   The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people? I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

3.

Yitzhak Shamir Validated:
THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"

by Mia T, 11.15.05

"I view Hillary Clinton as a great danger to Jews if she is elected."

 

former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
Jewish Press, July 2000

 

Clinton also referred to the Oslo peace process -- by any standard a total and abject failure -- "our best chance for a lasting and comprehensive peace."

I'm surprised he wasn't booed off the stage.

"If you work for peace and fail, fewer people will die than if you do not work at all," he said.

Tell it to Neville Chamberlain.

Clinton offered up a three-point peace plan:

1. He suggested Palestinians "use their opportunity in Gaza to do a better job of fighting terror." A better job? How about any job?
   
   

2. He suggested Israelis must find a way "to organize their politics" so that "their search for peace can continue." Isn't it time for world leaders to acknowledge that Israelis have done all they can -- that they have gone above and beyond the call of duty in working for peace? Am I the only one who finds such remarks rather insulting? How do Israelis view it?
   
   

3. And he suggested that the "most important" step is that Jews around the world and friends of Israel "have a special responsibility to give financial, moral and technical support to the Palestinian people to help the Gaza gamble succeed and to the Israelis to give them time to sort through their political situation."
   

This is what passes for deep thinking among world leaders.

Jews have a special responsibility to come to the aid of their embattled, bleeding, battered brothers and sisters in Israel. Suggesting Jews should divert their support to aiding the budding anti-Semitic, terrorist state of Palestine is immoral and unconscionable.

It is like suggesting that the best hedge against the rise of Adolph Hitler in the 1930s would have been diverting financial and technical aid to Germany....

Bill Clinton did his level best to destroy Israel during his eight years as president. He twisted Ehud Barak's arm to the point that the former prime minister had virtually given his country away to Yasser Arafat. Only a strange twist of fate, in which Arafat rejected the giveaway, halted the process and saved Israel from the unimaginable horror of being sliced and diced.

When people like Bill Clinton talk about a "peace plan" for Israel, what they really mean is a "piece plan" -- in which Israel would be left with only an indefensible piece of its historic land.

That's not peace ... it's ethnic, religious and cultural suicide.

Clinton's Israel 'piece' plan
Posted: November 15, 2005
Joseph Farah

halk this one up to the ultimate clinton mulligan.

The clintons' photo-op trip to Israel this week was punctuated yesterday by the above statement, which was shameless, self-serving, stupid, anti-Semitic and perilous... even by clinton standards.

To fully appreciate the context of the clinton trip and statement, one must understand that both are:

1. an extension of the clintons' arm-twisting, dangerous-for-Israel phony rapprochement in the Mideast.¹
   
   

2. confirmation that the clintons are a mortal danger for Jews², for Israel, for the region, for America³ and for the world.
   
   

3. an extension of the clintons' abject failure to confront terrorism, generally⁴
   
   

4. all about the Nobel Peace Prize:

   the clinton years were about a legacy that was incidentally a presidency⁵

   
   

5. the opening move in the Mideast to erase clinton's failure at both--his presidency and his legacy. (Hope apparently springs eternal for the snake-oil saleman from Hot Springs.)
   

It is not surprising that the clintons chose Israel to deliver the opening move. Israel is at once the clinton failure focal point and potential sore point in '08. Israel--and, as a Jew I am ashamed to say, the Jews-- have always been an easy mark for the clintons.

Continued Jewish support is essential if clinton is to pull off the ultimate mulligan, a do-over presidency and legacy, if you will.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

clintonism and the theology of contempt

by Mia T, November 2000 (sometime before the-first-Tuesday-after-the-first-Monday)

 

hillary talks: On Ethnic Slurs

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

"I view Hillary Clinton as a great danger to Jews if she is elected."

 

former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
Jewish Press, July 2000

 

I... underestimated the propensity of my people for narrow-mindedness and self-destruction (the Jewish vote for Mrs. Clinton was about 70%)....

Some anti-Semitism is irrational, founded in ignorance, as in Hillary's case....

But other forms of anti-Semitism can be earned, giving folks legitimate grievances against a people because they do crazy things like EXTEND HILLARY CLINTON'S POLITICAL LIFE!

This is not to cast the entire blame on Jewish New Yorkers; they alone couldn't have elected her. In my initial optimism, I equally underestimated the urban pseudo-intellectual's high-mindedness, as well as the Everyman's yearning for celebrity in his midst.

Julia Gorin, Getting used to Hillary
Jewish World Review
Nov. 27, 2000 / 29 Mar-Cheshvan, 5761

Let us hope that the rabbi's question was merely rhetorical. . . Let us hope that Rabbi Potasnik, and by extension, New York Jews, are not as credulous and obsequious and passive as they appear. . .

The simple answer to the rabbi's question is that the corrupt, self-serving, anti-Semitic, power-hungry harpy cannot be trusted.

Weren't we to never forget?

 

The Holocaust must remain, for Jew and Gentile alike, a constant reminder that mass credulity and obsequiousness and passivity are necessary for the demagogue to prevail.

To remember that six million Jews died in the Holocaust is to understand that centuries of anti-Semitic attitudes made this horror possible. We must ask ourselves what role our society played through the centuries that in any way contributed to the atmosphere that made such a genocide even thinkable.

Which brings me to the clintons and clintonism. . .

Senator Patrick Moynihan proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism -- "defining deviancy down."

Defining deviancy down, indeed.

clintonism has made personal and public perversions, personal and public predations, not merely thinkable, not merely acceptable, but de rigueur. Watch us spin.

 

clintonism is the theology of contempt. Not only toward "f***ing Jew-bastards," or "dumb n***ers" or "extra-chromosome right-wingers" but toward any of us whose ideas are different from those of the clintons, Gore, and their acolytes.

So the real question to be answered is this:

"What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would want to continue

 

with its theology of contempt?

What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would vote for hillary clinton or Al Gore?" 

IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY

by Mia T, 11.14.05

4.

Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000

by Mia T, January 3, 2006

 

 

 

THE ALIENS

Mia T, June 9, 1999

The only way they can win is to convince people that we're space aliens.

bill clinton

With thy sharp teeth this knot intrinsicate
Of life at once untie.

Antony and Cleopatra V, ii, 304-05

 

eggy Noonan's excellent piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is really the story of the death of democracy. At its core it is the description of the human double helix gone terribly awry, of a denatured protein grotesquely twisted, of two mutant, tangled strands of DNA, the basest imaginable of base pairs linked permanently, as firmly as guanine to cytosine, bill inexorably to hillary and conversely, doing what they do best, and doing it relentlessly.

Killing.
Killing insidiously.
Killing as they pose and pander and feel our pain.

My only complaint is with Peggy Noonan's title.
The Mad Boomer, doesn't begin to capture candidate clinton considered separately or even taken as the self-anointed "twofer," permanently conjoined at that cavity conspicuously empty except for ego, that place where brain and soul and guts and heart normally reside.

This is not to say that she -- that they -- are not both quite mad and of that self-indulgent, arrogantly, ignorantly solipsistic age sandwiched flatly between yesterday's innocence and tomorrow's insouciance. Rather, it is that their madness and their boomerism don't even begin to explain their noxious influence: The cloying, internally inconsistent clinton calculus. The unspoken clinton threats. They permeate the atmosphere like a coiling miasma, choking off all freedom.

Even in New York.
Especially in New York.

When she wrote "The New Colossus," Emma Lazarus hardly had in mind this pair of mutant, deadly, twisted aliens.

So forget Arkansas-Illinois carpetbaggery and standard issue muckraking. The clintons are aliens of quite another sort. They are extrinsic, not of this world. They are inhuman. They are dehumanizing.

You may recall that the first act of this story of two degenerates maintained by iterating idiots, farce of farce ad infinitum, was generated quite by accident by iterated AlGoreRhythm, who, it should be noted, is now himself the object of iterated calculation by said degenerates who want iteration 2004 all for themselves.

And thus the odd bit of bloody Gore in Act II: The ugly sight of a corrupt, bottom-heavy hillary self-impaled on the horns of a Treason-Dilemma- masquerading-as-a-Third-Term-Dilemma-masquerading-as-a-Senate-stampede, for example, or bill's recent unsolicited, underwhelming Times interview on the Gore candidacy.

Act I was called "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Ostensibly the tale of the wife of a bloodthirsty crime boss who finds romance with a bland bookseller between courses at her husband's restaurant, it was in fact the Thyestean and moveable -- yet unmoving -- feast of hillary clinton at her husband's sham restitution. (Note the reciprocity. The sham restitution in Act II is all hillary's.)

Food, color coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism were the exotic (if mostly horizontal) fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern memoir which passed as ancient fable about nouveau riche rapacity.

Not for the faint at heart, Purple Hearts or queazy stomachs, this depiction of the gross debasement of America was heavily peppered with irony and dark humor throughout.

Although she baked no cookies, didn't do illicit land or cattle deals and stood by no man, hillary clinton starred in the triple role of the Cook, the Thief and his Wife. Her lover was played at once vaporously and in workmanlike fashion by the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt, with Janet Reno, between her stints rendering intermittent injustice for the Husband, as the reliable stand-in. Sidney Blumenthal was the stand-in for the Cook and Craig Livingstone the stand-in for the Thief. The last-minute addition of Christopher Hitchens as the snitch was a stroke of absolute genius notwithstanding its cerebral accident, its predictable-if-perfect pitch (or its facile alliteration).

Although Act I had no rating, the new clinton soccer-mom directive will require a photo ID for any viewer without independent proof of illegal alien DNC <-> DNA sequencing.

 

In Act II, rabid anti-clinton voters, roughly 33% of the U.S. populace according to as-yet-unpodded pollsters, become increasingly aware that they are disappearing in droves and being replaced by alien pod replicas that have their physical attributes but lack all anti-clinton affect.

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

For details, goto:

 

COPYRIGHT Mia T 1999, 2006

 

[Mia T]

I'm not suggesting that you don't warch it, (although it would be great if you financially support neither Hollywood nor Spielberg when you do so).

That said, your logic of moviegoing escapes me. ;)

[Mia T]

I have some in my own family.

The older, less educated ones who lived through the Holocaust are acting out of fear, haven't really thought it through, think every D is FDR and every R is Hitler.

The younger 'elitists' have thought it thru, but with disinformation and faulty logic. They have been brainwashed by the academy. Their gospel is The New York Times... 'nuf said.

[Mia T]

fyi

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Brian Allen]

Thank you. Ever at risk of alienating those I love, by whom I am frequently frustrated and for whom I often despair, I must chose my words extremely carefully. It all descends from the Horrible, of course. And death-worshipping Hitler and his every goose-stepping pagan-heathen/panthiestsatanist slaughterhouse serf were/are "Christians."

Which "Demoncrats" most decidedly are not.

Blessings - Brian

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

bookmark for later.

[Mia T]

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

[BooksForTheRight.com]

Movie producers produce movies with an explicit agenda in mind. They do not produce movies to entertain.
The movie has a clear, definite idea that it wants to implant in the heads of the viewers whose critical reasoning facilities are softened by public school and the expectation of being entertained.
It is not the other way around: an entertaining movie has a few agenda-furthering blurbs here and there.

[Mia T]

One counterexample, in my view, is Woody Allen.

In fact, whenever anything explicitly political surfaces, it seems vaguely out of place. I get the feeling that its insertion was more obligatory than agenda-driven or artistic.

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[chris1]

I saw Munich this weekend. I was just as pissed off as my Jewish friends. Liberal Jews are truly their own worst enemies.

Eric Bana was great! But the message of the movie was absolute garbage and I was utterly disgusted.

[Mia T]

CORRECTIONS:

1. To advance his fallacious argument, Spielberg has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow.
   
   
2. In Munich, similarly, Spielberg humanizes the terrorist, but with techniques far less subtle. (Subtlety is most often an inverse measure of either the intelligence of the audience as perceived by the director, or the intelligence of the director. Or both.)

[Mia T]

any close encounters? bump ;)

[Mia T]

Another correction:

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

[WorkingClassFilth]

We really do live in a time of history where revision is nearly in real time. I keep thinking of Winston Smith and his job at the Ministry of Truth.

[Mia T]

Oddly, DreamWorks is distributing Woody's latest (Match Point).

[Mia T]

CORRECTED MAIN ESSAY:

AFTERWORD
MUNICH: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER OF THE WORST KIND

by Mia T, January 8, 2006

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.⁴

Alien Abductions, Flying Saucers + Other Weird Phenomena, c.1992-2000
Mia T, January 3, 2006

THE ALIENS
Mia T, June 9, 1999

 

 

orrowing a phrase, perversely, from a Spielberg flick about benign intelligence, to watch Steven Spielberg's Munich is to have a close encounter of the worst kind.

Munich, with its false premises, phony pieties and outright lies -- Spielberg fantasy wrapped in sober documentary -- is a verisimilitudinous contrivance that is pernicious, especially now, especially here, especially if we understand Spielberg's real motivation.

Truth matters not at all to Spielberg, and courage, so it seems, matters even less. To advance his fallacious argument, Spielberg has Golda Meir speak words she never said, never would have said and, obviously, cannot now disavow. Posthumous misappropriation is a preferred tactic of the abject coward.

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism

If misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage

Mia T, Moynihan Myths

 

Munich is less about Golda Meir avenging the 1972 Munich massacre than it is about George Bush waging the War on Terror. The Munich allusion is key to understanding Spielberg's motivation.⁵

The core of the Spielberg/Leftist anti-War-on-Terror argument is that by fighting back, we become our enemy. Ironically, with this movie, the same can now be said of Spielberg.

Is Steven Spielberg humanizing the terrorist really any different from Leni Riefenstahl humanizing Hitler? If anything, Spielberg is more contemptible. Whereas Leni Riefenstahl symbolizes the naïve actress and director who is induced to deal with devils, Spielberg is self-actuated and aware. He knows exactly what he is doing; and he wants to do it.

Leni Riefenstahl chronicled Hitler's 1934 Nuremberg rallies in Triumph of the Will, perhaps the most notorious documentary ever filmed. After the war, Riefenstahl excused her effort as pure documentary -- watch for Spielberg to do the same one day -- yet wholesale cut-and-splice was a standard technique: She composited Hitler's motorcade to Munich, for example, from other events and shot the closeups of Nazi leaders in a staged studio sequence.

Riefenstahl insisted that the finished quality of Triumph of the Will came "from her editing, not from any imposition of 'posed shots' or choreography on her part." With her innovative editing techniques, Riefenstahl deliberately and selectively "aestheticized Hitler and the Congress' proceedings. By editing out a shot of Hitler wiping his nose and including instead 'more interesting expressions,'" by eliminating the human, Riefenstahl eliminated the inhuman.

In Munich, similarly, Spielberg humanizes the terrorist, but with techniques far less subtle. (Subtlety is most often an inverse measure of either the intelligence of the audience as perceived by the director, or the intelligence of the director. Or both.) For sheer power, reach, and ruthlessness if not subtlety, the fascist Riefenstahl operation doesn't hold a candle to the Leftist agitprop machine today.

Hollywood is DreamWorks, fantastical and unthinking and solipsistic by definition.

In order to shut down this dangerous operation, people capable of critical thinking must take on Hollywood... and must do so in Hollywood's venues.

The printed word, sad to say, no longer carries the day.

[Mia T]

bump

I would strike 'nearly.'

As I noted during the clinton years: The only difference today, in this era of ubiquitous cameras, continuous news and the shameless auteur-tyrant, is that the Washington Press Corps, spun by and on the Hollywood-Arkansas-New York Axis, edits out the clintons' inhumanity in real time. . .

[Mia T]

bump