The Misguided Teen Angst of “Heathers” and the Incremental Anti-White Creep of Hollywood

Summary

Reviewer

Libertarian Agnostic

Review Date

Reviewed Item

"The Misguided Teen Angst of “Heathers” and the Incremental Anti-White Creep of Hollywood"

Author Rating

Just rewatched one of my favorite films. The casual immorality was something that stood out this time now that I am red-pilled. I’m no saint. Quite the opposite. But I wonder if future generations will watch films like this and see how promiscuous our society was, and how so many of the problems and angst were created because we stopped respecting the founding traditions & patriarch that created our civilization and kept it in tact.

I wouldn’t say this film is particularly against religion. It’s just a dark comedy that pokes fun at morbid things, while dismissing religion as an ineffective coping mechanism. You could even interpret the movie as being pro-tradition, and pro-religion since it lampoons most church goers as just going through the motions, but without true devotion and concern for what is righteous. There’s even some parallels to Romeo & Juliet themes, in regards to the disrespect the young lovers have for the ruling forces of the universe.

But I’m 95% sure that wasn’t the intent of the script. The intended message of the movie was likely to satirize modern culture and its cold response to teen suicide. The conclusion seems to be that parents just don’t understand, high school will always suck, and if only we showed more love & compassion to kids there’d be less unhappiness. But you and I both know that’s not the case. This movie was made in ’88, which makes it somewhat prophetic when you think about the school shooter epidemic we have now. A lot of the same problems are still going on today – even worse than before. But to the film’s credit, they did correctly peg lack of love as the cause of all this.

But it’s not the goofy #LoveWins kind of unconditional love we hear spouted from the left. It’s more of a lack of belonging in this modern, hyper consumerist world we live in. We have been robbed of our ancestor’s religion, race, gender, and nation. We’re not allowed to embrace those things anymore, let alone be proud of them. Instead of loyalty & pride in your community, you are only allowed to have loyalty & pride to an arbitrary group of interchangeable Africans who wear designated colors that represent your area.

(And thanks to the sexual revolution/destruction of the family, many of us don’t even have patriarchal figures to disrespect even if we wanted to.) So instead, we replace this giant hole with vice. Simple pleasures like Tinder and new iPhones. Hook up culture and shallow friendships that continually leave us unfulfilled. And yet we keep doing the same sh*t and are shocked when things only get worse.

It’s no wonder suicide is on the rise, especially with white males. I won’t argue my case for why this is, because it’ll take too long, but if you’re interested this documentary shows that most school shooters are a product of big pharma. And these two rants by Nick Fuentes or this rant by Jean-Francois Gariépy also hammer across the point about the degeneration of modern society and how hedonism won’t bring you true happiness. But if you already agree, here are two artsy fartsy shorts that perfectly exemplify what this film feels like:

1.)

2.)

The other thing I noticed with my post-red pill viewing was how they made the blue-eyed blondes the bad guys. I watched it with my Russian gf this time, and within the first 10 minutes she said, “God, American schools always seem like hell!” I explained that Hollywood exaggerates things and that actually when I went to school it was more like the movie “21 Jump Street” where the weird kids were cool. Which in all honesty is likely due to Hollywood’s transformative propaganda combined with the Columbine school shooting that scared society straight like JD’s character intended when he plotted to blow up the school. But still, even when talking to my elder family members, school was never like they portrayed it on the big screen. Or at least not that bad. Which is why we have to look at who is making these films to truly understand why school is depicted in such a way.

You see, this anti-white incrementalism has been around in Hollywood from the very beginning and only now (with absurdly obvious “Star Wars” and “Get Out” kill whitey type movies) do we notice it. But long before that, if you pay close enough attention, you’ll see that the blue-eyed blonde types gradually became the villains/morons more and more overtime:

So I did some research on where the “dumb blonde” meme began.

TL;DR Hollywood popularized the phrase 'dumb blonde.'➡Click for the full explanation.⬅

There are several theories on the etymology of the dumb blonde jokes and the stereotype that blondes are dumb. Using Google’s Ngram Viewer we can try to get to the bottom of things. If you don’t know, it’s a free service that lets you create graphs based on the frequency each phrase occurs within the entire database of books they’ve scanned. The chart below is from 1877 – 1980, comparing several intelligence related search terms.

Some of the phrases I searched such as “genius blonde” or “retarded blonde” had no results whatsoever. The very first mention I could find relating to blonde intelligence (or lack thereof), was in 1878 and it was “intelligent blonde” that first hit. So right off the bat it seems clear that Hollywood coined the term.

For frame of reference here are charts for variations of beautiful and ugly from the same time period (1877 – 1980) to make the comparison easier, even though the first mention of “beautiful blonde” (in 1803) predates “dumb blonde.”

As expected, society values outer appearance more, but nevertheless it can help us ball park things. Here you can see it without the unpopular search terms cluttering things up:

It becomes obvious that this term was indisputably a product of Hollywood, roughly around the time Hitler was coming to power spouting off about blonde superiority. Again, another zoomed in graph with varying search terms supports this theory:

Likewise, Phrase.org.uk comes to the same conclusion:

(There were other books that mention “dumb blonde” before Anita Loos’ novel, but I couldn’t find free copies of these works online. So if anyone can get a copy please leave ’em in comments below or email us Thank you!)

But other theories go even further back. Apparently, the promiscuous stereotype of blondes can be traced to ancient Roman laws that forced prostitutes to dye their hair blonde. To me, this seems like more of a stretch and only focuses on the sexual part, not the intelligence. So instead, let’s focus on the somewhat more recent suspected origin (which also happens to be a prostitute).

Via Wikipedia:

Via StuffMomNeverToldYou:

There’s definitely something to this theory. (The oldest recorded use in google’s corpus for the phrase “dizzy blonde” was in the 1860’s.)

And for a closer look:

Still, even the synonymous senior phrase seems fairly insignificant considering it occurs on par with “smart blonde” and “intelligent blonde.” Neither of which became idioms of their own. But to the credit of the dizzy blonde theorists, it seems clear that the notion of a ditsy blonde had been around long before Hollywood. Especially since “dizzy brunette” is an almost non existent phrase in the google literature database. Still, things don’t really kick off until the 1920’s/1930’s.

Something to take note of, though, is that “dumb dora” wasn’t exclusive to blondes. In fact, the two most famous incarnations started out as brunettes.

Via Wikipedia:

Via Yahoo Answers:

The first incarnation was a cartoon of a 1920’s flapper girl with black hair. But after the dumb blonde shtick made it to the silver screen, the meme had coopted the original color-neutral phrase, and the cartoonist followed suit. He ended up giving up on “Dumb Dora” to pursue another airhead named “Blondie.” Then, once that subversion was complete, Hollywood set its eyes on undermining the husband/wife dynamic. And sure enough, the cartoonist towed the line again, until his original creation was completely inverted.

Via Comics Kingdom:

Via Mental Floss:

Via the University of Florida:

Via Mental Floss:

The second incarnation was a dark haired actress who was also hijacked as a Dumb Dora and converted into a Dumb Blonde:

Via Wikipedia:

Via Chicago Tribune:

One unsourced fan site says the producers made her dye her hair, but her husband’s biography says it was a hair stylist:

But upon researching this claim about film limitations on dark hair, I found no evidence to support it. It’s true early black & white television required bizarre makeup tricks for a decently composed end result, but there were several actors/actresses with dark hair working at the time, like Mary Astor. And every source I came across^[1]^[2]^[3] just mentioned the makeup as seen below:

Occam’s Razor would suggest that it was a stylistic choice more than anything. A lot of the famous female leads at the time were blondes and this was before affirmative action so if “gentlemen preferred blondes,” that’s who got the part. Sex sells. It could also be because contrast always works well with comedy duos. For example, thin & tall Abbott standing next to short & fat Costello. Or like Young Chic’s original Dumb Dora cartoon, with a black haired female and a blonde male suitor. Who knows? Well, I emailed my conjectures to a makeup historian from one of the sources above, and he was equally as skeptical:

I don’t mean to assume nefarious motives, but I’d be remiss not to mention the Jewish ingredients that may have played a part. Perhaps this stylistic choice was biased in favor of the Jewish sensibilities and subconscious preferences of the overwhelmingly Jewish members of Hollywood. If you think it’s a myth that Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood, I suggest you watch the documentary called “An Empire of Their Own – How the Jews Invented Hollywood” or you at least read this passage from Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda:

So, without a doubt, Jews were the founding fathers of Hollywood and remain over represented in the industry to this day. And the facts remain whether you think it’s a conspiracy or not. The only part that’s debatable is if Tinsel Town’s core identity matters and if we can prove its influence.

If you think I’m looking too deeply into things, and that noticing Jewish elements means you’re automatically an antisemite with confirmation bias, then read what Prof. Lawrence Epstein says via Tamara Olson’s paper, “Popular Representations of Jewish Identity on Primetime Television: The Case of The O.C.”

So, while watching these clichéd blondes and cartoonishly evil jocks on screen, I was reminded of 2 books I read about Hollywood. Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up & Sing and Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda.

From Ben:

So if the Jewish identity of Mel Brooks affected his creative output, do you think the Jewish identity of the “Heathers” creators would have any impact?

(Despite first glances, the JewOrNotJew site is ran by philo-semitic Jews, and is not Alt Right to say the least.)

Michael Lehmann the director:

Daniel Waters the screenwriter:

(Seems Jewish but can’t confirm.)

Winona Ryder the lead actress:

There you have it. Plain and simple. To us non-Jews we just see a movie about a quirky girl fighting off the obnoxious cool kids. Most people can relate and will cheer for the protagonist. Especially when the script makes the antagonists one dimensional monsters. But what goes over our heads is the Jewish animosity towards WASPs. And if I were to explain this outright, people would think I was a tinfoil hat nazi, no?

Well, aside from anecdotal evidence, Pew Research backs this up as well:

And others noticed the WASP aspect too:

I am well aware of Godwin’s Law, but does it still count if this obsession with Hitler is not your own? According to Pew Research, most Jews are secular and the biggest unifying part of their identity is “remembering the holocaust.” So surely this nazi complex plays a part in how roles are cast, (whether subconsciously or not), as Shapiro’s excerpt about Mel Brooks proves. It’s much like this clip of Jordan Peterson arguing that whether you’re an atheist or not, it doesn’t matter because you can never completely divorce yourself from the Christian society you were born into. It permeates into more than you can possibly imagine and is likely responsible for most of the way you think:

Well, then is it farfetched to think that the overly sexualized, dumb blonde shtick is likely an extension of what the Torrah teaches about goys/shiksas, since it sounds an awful lot like how the Quran talks about infidels and the chosen ones’ claim to infidel women?

But to be fair, many theologians say these passages are misinterpreted or taken out of context. And at any rate, if the largely speculative psychoanalysis about shiksas has any clout, it’s not very apparent in “Heathers” since it has a female lead. So if you’re interested in the shiksa hypothesis, you can check out what other bloggers theorize about it. For now, let’s move onto how the inferiority complex of most liberal types (gentiles and Jews alike) is manifested in Hollywood.

From Laura:

So basically, Hollywood is full of a bunch of freaks and losers with bitter memories of high school. And now the rest of the world thinks American high school is a living hell. An interesting theme throughout Ben Shapiro’s book is the debate on if Hollywood’s relationship with society is more transformative or more reflective. Clearly it’s both and a vicious cycle. At first, when Hollywood started casting more beta males, it was because the beta males who ran the industry identified with such characters, just as they identified with blue-eyed blondes being their (perceived) enemies. A great anecdote to prove this point can be found in part of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech about his come up:

Without a doubt, the market wanted alpha male chads with big muscles, blonde hair, and blue eyes. But the nepotistic elites insisted on giving roles to people like Dustin Hoffman and Woody Allen. They couldn’t fathom anyone identifying with Arnold because they couldn’t. Unfortunately, our society has changed (largely due to this propaganda) so more and more of us can identify with the awkward “nice guy” male feminist soyboy. So what was once a discriminating casting choice in spite of profits, has slowly become justified. Fake it ’til you make it, I suppose.

CONCLUSION:

Despite all its flaws, I still have a soft spot for the movie, its charming cast, and its amazing soundtrack. All the anti-white stuff will likely slip under the radar so it’s easily brushed aside by the viewer. Furthermore, you can think of the whole thing as a satire on the decline of Western Civilization due to lacking morals/tradition. Rather than a commentary on teen angst due to lack of love & tribal cliques. If you go into it with these perspectives in mind, I think you’ll still really enjoy the film. Pay if you’d like, because it’s pretty late to care about boycotting it at this point. Besides, Winona Ryder isn’t the most outspoken actor, only guilty by association. :^)