Relevance is big with me. Not in the now necessarily, because now is a state of mind and anything that doesn't contain 'now-less' relevance is transient and doesn't concern me...except for how it plays in the game.
I watched another movie. Yes, I have always been hooked on moving pictures and what they could have done for our minds. The communication and the learning that could have happened save the hijacking that took place in this art-form's infancy. The promise is lingering there still in those cans. But that's as may be.
The movie was made in the adolescence of jewry's use of the media for propaganda purposes. The 50's. I don't expect you to have seen it. It has no bombs, blow-jobs or blood. No color even. But it was heralded in its time as an important "drama", and shot the author of the screenplay into fame and fortune. One Rod Serling. Before 'Twilight Zone', Serling wrote many human dramas and put them to film. For the most part...these were "morality plays". Only they taught the wrong one.
The original production of "Patterns", the movie in question, was first broadcast on television. It was so popular, that you have Serling and that play to thank for 're-runs'. It was the first ever TV program to be aired twice. But aside from these facts, and the melodrama of this screenplay's popularity...to me, it is exceptionally relevant. A kind of a 'this is how it all started' thing. This time period is when their game began to be sold to the general public through the media they had stolen.
In the play an aging executive is being pushed out of a corporation for his aging ideas of fairness in business. This morality is seen as a drawback to the corporation's growth by the younger(jewish)son of the founder that has taken the reigns of the company. He is in the process of establishing a business empire through underhanded means, and having to fight the older man left from his father's days at every turn on a playing field of ethics. An interesting idea, to be sure. And one which is not only relevant today but could have been an opportunity to defeat the idea of the jewish 'is-ness of business' on such a field.
However, being penned as it was by a jew, the conclusion of the story finds the older man dying and a younger executive taking his place...vowing to continue exerting the more measured morality for which the old man fought...but more importantly being the CEO's right-hand man. He thought of quitting after his predecessor's demise( a heart-attack caused by an argument with the younger president), but an exceptionally important line uttered by the jew in charge changed his mind. The CEO praised our young (obviously Gentile) hero's abilities, offered him anything he wanted to take over in the dead man's job, and even told him that if he must...he would be allowed to act as the CEO's 'conscience' in the offered position. Here Serling could have made a statement. And he did. The only one that his culture could have made. The wrong one. Our hero took the job.
I have just panned "Atlas Shrugged" the book published about the same time in our country's history, for the exact same flaws concerning the, what I would term a jewish-fascist business model. And indeed, as we witness...a social one.
This is when it began. From two outposts, if you will...of the same enemy encampment. Both authors fought moral censorship in their efforts, and yet both were wildly successful in changing the game. Changing it from one of time-tested morality plays that served to solidify fairness in a constitutional republic and a "do unto others" coda...to yiddish greed allowed by a 'democratic' ethic...or the lack thereof.
I know, I am dragging you through some pretty dated stuff. Old novels and movies. But to me, you must understand where their game started. You have to understand when the rules were changed and how they went about altering them before you can effectively take them out of their game. You must see where we as a society went wrong. Where we turned a blind eye. Where we were too busy to stand up for the rule of justice in our species. A rule of our game...not theirs.
I am not a great writer. I am not even a good one. But what I bang on about here is honorable, I feel. And necessary. It is an old idea, but it is relevant. And as I said to begin with...relevance is big with me.
I am under no illusion that I will be remembered as a man of letters or even a good man at all. For the most part, I can and have been a bit of a horse's ass most of my life. I have no illusions to the contrary. But I do believe that you can redeem a negligible existence by acting upon your convictions even when they garner you naught but ridicule; if they are noble ones. I think that petitioning for justness is such a conviction.
I would not have taken the job in the play. I would have told Dagney Taggart to go fuck herself. I would have done everything in my power to take these relevant characters out of their game. Sue me. If anything I write can be seen by a few as relevant or revealing, then I am in 'my' game.
I hope you see the relevance.