Culture

How the Alt Right Ruined My Love of Film

As time ripens the mind, wisdom renders a paradigm shift which tarnishes the love and discovery of that younger self which I now experience with a tainted sense of nostalgia. The Alt Right offers intellectual nourishment contextualized by history (not rationalized at history’s expense as in Marxist critiques) and aligned with the natural order which resonates deep in the marrow of the European soul. This Traditionalist understanding of the world far exceeds the infantile worldview of Marxist academia. Thus, the Alt Right’s Traditionalist worldview erodes this mode of pretension revealing the leftist narrative manifest in much of the world of film with seemingly very few exceptions.

As a child growing up in the nineties, film offered a window into the greater world to which I did not yet have access. The nascent internet did not yet have streaming video. Waiting for pictures to load could be laborious. However, the the locally owned movie rental place provided a joy which could not be experienced in any other capacity.

There was a certain discovery in the limited variety of film that one could watch in those days depending on what your local store could get. Often, you would end up watching films in which you had little interest because that particular film was the best of the hours’s offerings if you were watching TV. Thus, over the years, I would find myself watching a wide variety of movies from classics, to blockbuster re-runs, to obscure B-schlock.

The burgeoning internet by the early aughts yielded a new selection of independent and foreign films which filled in the downtime afforded by my new college schedule.  It was during this time period I discovered art house film and cult film and a variety of foreign classics. I read essays on Sergie Eisenstein’s Odessa Steps sequence from Battleship Potempkin. I wrote papers about communist Red Scare allegory in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I discussed Pink Flamingos using the gender lens/feminist film theory.

In my late teens and early twenties, I felt as if I was seeing film for the first time again learning how to unveil the layers using what I learned from college and from reading and from analyzing with friends after a viewing. This sophomoric appreciation of film gave me, as I now understand, a somewhat false sense of elitism which is one of the means which the academic institutions and universities use to turn middle class teenagers from the suburbs and rural communities further removed into the good-think cosmopolitans we know inhabit the urban wastelands of the West.   

As time ripens the mind, wisdom renders a paradigm shift which tarnishes the love and discovery of that younger self which I now experience with a tainted sense of nostalgia.  The Alt Right offers intellectual nourishment contextualized by history (not rationalized at history’s expense as in Marxist critiques) and aligned with the natural order which resonates deep in the marrow of the European soul. This Traditionalist understanding of the world far exceeds the infantile worldview of Marxist academia. Thus, the Alt Right’s Traditionalist worldview erodes this mode of pretension revealing the leftist narrative manifest in much of the world of film with seemingly very few exceptions.

The revelations begin with even the earliest cinema. Case-in-point Battleship Potempkin. Even this 1925 film features all that the Alt Right expects from film in 2017. Consider Sergei Eisensen. Born of a German Jew Father, whose father before him was a Christian convert who married a Swede, and a Russian Orthodox mother. Eisenstein, a mischling, manifests the classic features of the rootless cosmopolitan involved in film. Furthermore, Eisenstein’s considered his 1925 magnum opus a Marxist revolutionary allegory of a lowly ship crew engaged in mutiny against the ship’s officers. Additionally, many film critics since have noted the strong homosexual subtext to the film, and Eisenstein’s own homosexuality is well documented though not often publicized. Even in these seemingly “quaint” times, filmmakers used cinema as a tool which uses narrative as a vehicle to manipulate ethos, pathos, and logos for a socio-political effect.

Jumping to 1956, Jew Don Siegel directed Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In this classic 50’s sci-fi drama, aliens take over the bodies of friends, neighbors, and relatives in this small, idyllic, though fictional, California town. Where the 1954 novel by Jack Finney seems to reflect the earnest fear of a potential silent communist invasion and subversion of America, the 1956 film adds a meta-narrative which satirizes the Red Scare providing a criticism of McCarthy era inquiries into communists in Hollywood which would have certainly affected colleagues, artists, and writers in Siegel’s social circle. The verisimilitude of the scope and intent of McCarthy’s suspicions have obviously been vindicated in the decades since. In this self-aware meta-narrative, Siegel accuses Americans of a fear induced conformity sparked by the House Un-American Activities Committee and various Senate hearing into Hollywood and the extent of communist infiltration therein. This film stands as an early example of Jewish filmmakers, either communists or communist sympathizers, chastising the very audience which sustains their careers. The traditional American demographic still continues to be the punching-bag of Hollywood proving that Europeans’ threshold for masochism is indeed very high.

When you are young, you have a naive thirst for consumption of your particular hobbies. The want to see and learn more about film encouraged me to watch John Water’s 1972 film Pink Flamingos with friends one weekend. This particular film exemplifies the transgressive art film genre. There is no need to explain the plot. Just imagine everything a trashy, degenerate gay man (a gentile in this case) would put in a film starring a white trash drag queen. Today, I would not even finish reading a synopsis of this film. However, the academic  intelligentsia defends this as a work of art, and, because I took their authority on art as a matter of fact, I engaged the film as if it were. Even now, I remember being repulsed by Pink Flamingos the same way I would feel repulsed by Harmony Korine’s 1997 film Gummo during that same time period.  

Before my awakening, the matter of quality was one of pretension. A movie could be considered good or artful if the film in question was critically lauded by hipster consensus, written about by university professors, and praised by published film critics. Now, the matter of quality faces a different criteria entirely.

Film is put under the scrutiny of the following question: Is a film positive, neutral (apolitical), or negative in its critique of Western Civilization and to what extent? I would consider film and television negative toward Western Civilization if the film incorporates any of the following leftist narratives which includes but is not limited to homosexuality, any deconstruction of Western traditions/mores/gender roles, critiques of patriarchy, degenerate sexuality, and/or interracial sexual relationships.  

As you read the list of leftists narratives, a montage of films probably flash through the mind. Even though I do still continue to watch film and television, the desire to invest myself in the medium has died. I know that I am not the only one who feels this way. However, what may come out of this void? Much like music, the future of the Alt Right will include film and “television” by way of the medium of the internet. In 2017, we are already seeing a nascent culture grow around this movement. The fertile intellectualism of the last half century is finally manifesting in other mediums. Thus, the death of film to the tide of rising nationalists in the West will bear fruit in the time to come, and I am very much looking forward to this new Nationalist Renaissance in Art.  

 

Contrarian Gent
the authorContrarian Gent
A Southern Gentleman of the Alt Right interested in the cultural vortex of the Kali Yuga.