Why did Marine and wife go to see Little Fockers on Christmas?

N. writes:

Let’s see, sixty or so years ago a hit Christmas movie was Miracle on 34th Street. Now the hit movie is Little Fockers. I see a problem. Seems to me that the first mistake was going to see Little Fockers at all, and the second mistake was choosing a poor venue to do so.

The larger issue is this: a society that regards a vulgar blob like Little Fockers as entertainment is also one that likely won’t teach self control, and will only provide protection on a reactive basis, not a proactive one. Thus going to see it at all entails some risk because of the likely audience.

Florida has issued concealed handgun permits for nigh on a generation. It would behoove any honest resident who qualifies to get one. This incident shows why.

P.S. I find the Marine’s reaction to the punching of his wife to be curious. She could have been seriously injured by such a blow, even permanently crippled or disfigured. Perhaps he was just glad they both got out of it with no permanent injuries.

LA replies:

Little Fockers, notwithstanding its extreme vulgarity, its very name being an adolescent play on “f*ckers,” is designated as “family entertainment.” Christmas is a time when people go to see “family” movies. That’s why it opened on Christmas. That’s why millions of people went to see a movie called “F*ckers” on Christmas. What a victory for the Hollywood types seeking to lower America to their own level.

- end of initial entry -

December 29

LA writes:

A reader identifying himself as a moderate, non-MacDonaldian white nationalist wrote in part:

I have to wonder why, in the final line of your reply to N., you don’t get any more specific than mentioning that the perpetrators of rampant cultural crimes, are certain “Hollywood types.” Don’t you suppose that these Hollywood types, these cultural criminals, these enablers of the violent criminals, are preponderantly ethnic Jews? I am well aware that sixty years ago, the Jews of Hollywood were supportive of traditional American and Christian values. The issue here is not the dominant Jewish influence in historic Hollywood, but their dominant influence in it (and the mass media, in general) today, and since the middle-to-late 1960s.

Since this influence has not been merely adventitiously corrosive of traditional values and culture, but outright subversive of them, you ought to have identified the culprits by their ethnic identity, exactly as you (rightly) do in cases of minority-initiated violent crime.

I replied to him:

Your point is legitimate. I thought of mentioning the Jewish angle on a movie called “Fockers”—a movie called “Fockers,” morever, being treated as a Christmas movie. I might have mentioned it. I have dealt with the issue of leftist Jewish cultural subversion of the Christian majority culture numerous times in the past. But in the act of writing this brief comment it didn’t feel necessary or appropriate, so I left it out. In order to bring it in, I would have had to add a whole new set of arguments and set of facts to back up the point, and I didn’t want to get into that at that moment.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 28, 2010 11:12 PM | Send