Movie Review: 'Shattered Glass'
by Alex Linder
28 November 2004
"Stop pitching, Steve. It's over." And with that, lying jew Stephen Glass (right) is expelled from the offices of The New Republic, in whose pages he planted 27 bogus stories. That's 27 out of 41, and this with a battery of senior editors, copy editors, and lawyers going over his every word multiple times!
Jew Glass's behavior and expulsion is a perfect microcosm of the experience
of jews among Aryans. The jews lie, cheat and steal, cry, whine, plead when they get caught, and finally wind up getting booted out on their ass. "Shattered Glass" isn't an action feature like "They Live," or a sci-fi thriller like "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," but it pursues the same object: the dramatic extraction of what is from what seems. This is a perfect trainer movie for WN investigators because in the chutzpathetic behavior and unmanly deportment of jew Glass we have a window into his entire rotten, duplicitous, wheedling, whining, conspiring, expostulating race.
Through a glass clearly we are shown, not told, everything we need to know
Jews are essentially nodes on a global criminal network, call it
Interstein. Each comes equipped with a bag of excuses, and a black book of Crimbergs and Bailsteins to reroute 'round danger should the jig be uppin', and links disabled. Deceit and manipulation are second nature to the jews. The Aryan misses this at the cost of his society, then his existence. There are very few sectors of our society not shot through with jews spinning lies for profit.
From the race-realist point of view, what is a detail in the movie is
actually one of its most telling points, namely that when the fact-checking heat came down, and jew Glass was forced to document his sources, he was able to rely upon his brother at Stanford (!) to sustain his mirage. At the drop of a dime, jew/Stanford was willing to help jew/D.C. by calling up editor Lane and pretending to be George Simms, president of Jukt Micronics, a company Glass invented as part of a kewl story about a teen hacker hired at a seven-figure salary to secure a company whose computers he'd invaded. Spinning illusions out of dust; making a living from the air - these are jewish specialities. These black arts are much admired among Semites. Without truth or honor going for them, the jews are left with a sort of crooked loyalty. However, that
crooked loyalty may be enough, given jewish predominance in our society.
It is the odd Glass that gets broken. The vast majority remain intact and in place, and the media they produce a funhouse in which everything is distorted out of all shape, but always to their benefit.
Lane-the-Aryan vs. Glass-the-Jew; or, When Objectivity Meets
If you don't recall the Glass caper from a few years ago, read these two
links to refresh your memory.
The New Republic belongs to Martin Peretz, a jew. It's a standard
jew organ, liberal, anti-racist, except when it comes to Israel, where it's
hyperracist. The day-to-day editorial business during the late nineties was run by goy Michael Kelly, who was fired and gave way to goy Charles Lane. Kelly was popular with the staff of twentysomething writers, and jew Glass used Lane's stiffish relationship with the Kelly-loyal staff to smear Lane's motives when he began the Aryan detective work to reveal the jewish crime.
Charles Lane (left) is the quintessential honest Aryan, slow to anger, slow to doubt. Glass is the jew. Quick to draw sympathy, entertain, draw women, hyperemotional. Lying, lying, lying, blaming sources as lie after lie disintegrates upon inspection, not above a final ploy of hinting that he's suicidal when Lane finally fires him. Never, really, taking responsibility for anything. Hell, trying to profit from his lies to the very end. In real life Stephen Glass finished law school at Georgetown and returned to New York, where he wrote a novel, The Fabulist, about himself. This be chutzpah, and the jew must make the most of it. "Sell every lie three times," as the jewish writers say. Did you damage the reputation of a century-old institution with your fabrications? Well, don't stop, Hyman, until you've wrung every last drop of profit from your imposture.
As I say, Lane, at least in the movie, is the quintessential Aryan. Scrupulous, honest, slow, careful. Such a contrast to the eely, oily, teary jew, he's. The beautiful part of this movie is that this lying jew doesn't get away with it. He gets nailed. The Lane mill grinds slow but it grinds fein, so to speak. The righteous Aryan leader finally puts his foot down and crushes the jewsnake. The women cry and moan, but in the end, they come around. They see that in his coldness and his carefulness and his judgment - Lane was right. Justice not mercy rules the day - very unusual these days. You will see the obvious
parallel to our political situation today, where jew-conditioned white women
import/sleep with niggers/other women, and everything goes to hell. The jew draws the women to revolt, tells them they're equals of men, with just as much capacity for violence, reasoned thought, and leadership. They aren't. But many of them, hearing uniform message of the school-government-media machine, exposed to nothing else, buy it. We all see and must live with the results.
It never occurs to Lane that someone would make up stories out of whole
cloth. But when he's contacted by Adam Penenberg of Forbes Digital, it slowly dawns on him that something is deeply wrong about the Glass story mentioned above. The company, Jukt Micronics, can't be located. Neither can the teen hacker. Neither can the kid's agent, nor the convention at which he was hailed as a superstar, be documented. But the jew doesn't give up or give the truth up easily. He's got lies to cover lies. As each layer is peeled, a new one presents itself. He's got excuses, explanations, and extenuations for everything. And the whining and expostulation and attempted guilt-tripping are unbelievable. A jew is an animal that seems to have all the defenses of the animal kingdom at its disposal: the tears of
woman, the bloating of the pufferfish, the squirting of the squid, the
quills of the porcupine.
"Are you mad at me?" Glass says throughout the picture, trying to deflect
Lane's request for notes and contact information. He's continually trying to turn an objective question of evidence into a subjective question of motivation, exactly the way the ADL tries to turn debate over crime from a focus on objective data to subjective feelings about motives. And for the same reason: to hide the guilty party; in his case himself; in the ADL's case, organized jewry, which is responsible for the "civil rights" that loosed black criminals on a formerly safely segregated nation.
The cold, logical, masculine application of feminine wiles, deceit, and manipulation seems to be the working M.O. of the jewish race, from Glass right on up. Glass instinctively exhibits behavior scientifically turned into strategy by ADL. The Aryan finds the jew hard to understand because Aryans follow a different pattern. When we lie, the vast majority of us, we know we're doing a shitty thing; that we're destroying trust, and tearing away the basis of communal life. When the pressure gets great enough, or our remorse overwhelms our conscience, we admit to it. JEWS AREN'T LIKE THAT. There ought to be a name given the fallacy of assuming that people that look more or like us think like we do. Jews don't. They are a different species. They do not feel ashamed of lying, they PRIDE THEMSELVES ON THEIR ABILITY TO LIE. Remember what Monica Lewinsky said, when her lies about her mess with Clinton were revealed. Lying was "what you did. It was how you got through life." Think about the implications of that for a second. The jews don't see lying as a desperate last resort. They see it as an essential tool in making their way through our world. The jews sort of look like us, and they move among us, but they are something very, very different.
How did he get away with it?
Jew Glass really wormed his way in with the staff, particularly the women.
As he says at the start, in the world of cutthroat self-importance that is Washington journalism, the littlest bit of humility and respect for others stands out. Glass was the youngest staffer, and the most entertaining. Where others wrote drab policy pieces, he uncovered scintillating tales of excess or corruption. He charmed the other staff members personally - by paying attention to them. This works with everybody, but with women in particular. There's a parallel here in that just as Aryans have difficulty recognizing jews aren't Aryans, women have difficulty recognizing men aren't women. People assume others think like they do, but they don't, whether for race or sex or some other reason. In any case, getting others to like him was a definite skill Glass possessed, and it was an important minor reason he got away with his charade for so long.
The main reason Glass succeeded was that he fed the editors pieces that
appeared to document their biases. He proved what they "knew" without having actual factual evidence of, so they let their guard down. When he presented them with "Spring Breakdown," a piece purporting to document orgies among young conservatives at a Republican convention, they never thought to question it, because all good liberals know that Republicans are evil white men who quaff and whore behind a facade of hypocritical moralizing. All Glass did was pretend to document in the real world the stereotypes ubiquitous on tv. He knew who he was writing for, and he knew what they wanted to hear, and he knew that if they heard it, they would never think twice. With a novelist's verisimilitude of plausible names and
quotations, Glass set the hook and reeled the suckers in. It really was
chutzpah at its finest. It takes balls to simply make up a story, fill it with fictional people, companies, and events. And keep mum through phalanxes of legal/editorial reviewers, through publication, through attempts by honest reporters to unveil the truth. Only bit by bit did jew Glass cede the increasingly obvious. Oy, a different construction might have been put. Oy, a copy editor changed a line. Oy, a source may have been mistaken. Oy, the phone number is not for the source himself, but for the source of the source. Oy, why are you mad at me? Oy, isn't the duty of the editor to defend his reporters? Oy, you fired me? Oy, oy, oy, what going to do am I? Oy, alone I can't be. Oy, drive me to the airport, or oy'll not be responsible for my actions.
There truly is nothing like a jew. Watching Lane's reaction as he finally realizes, Jesus Christ, this isn't one story, this little shmuck has probably been feeding us bullshit from day one, and may well have wrecked the magazine, and seeing him go in and just tell the rich 'n' jewy Glass to back away from the computer, and don't touch anything, just get out of the building -- no one watching this from a WN perspective can fail to see the parallel. Jew Glass is the jewish race, and the mess he made of The New Republic and its reputation is precisely the mess the jewish race is making of America and hers. AND THE SAME EXPULSION IS INDICATED. Only this time, to avoid recurrences, letz make it vertical. You know, jew Glass's chutzpah was so brazen, and so obviously impossible to pull off over the long term, it truly does suggest an almost genetic compulsion to overreach, as others have indeed said of the jews. And that is good news for WN, because it simply means that we honest men are in the position of Charles Lane, and simply need to keep chugging along, alerting more and more honest Aryans to the truth about Big Hymie.
A third reason Glass succeeded was because his lies were Big rather than small. He didn't gussy up a story about Microsoft with some quotes from anonymous sources, he made up companies and peoples and events out of thin air. Apparently this didn't raise a single flag anywhere in the review process. A voiceover spells out that process in detail, and it is impressive. Basically, an issue of The New Republic is fact-checked and copy-edited and lawyer-reviewed multiple times. But not a single person ever doubted that Jukt Micronics existed.
Men drive off mental maps of the way the world works. They see the world in
stereotypes. A few of the intelligent ones are able to accept fresh input
conflicting with their world view, but not many. If you feed men data that reinforce their assumptions, they listen. If you point out where they're wrong, they turn off.
I've done a minor bit of Glassing myself, although not precisely in the
same way, and not to any criminal end, merely to make some political points I thought could not be made any other way in the organ in question. I described this in the postscript to my article on media control.
P.S. A funny little coda on TAS. I many times bitterly contrasted myself
with Tyrrell. His aim was to get published in The Washington Post, mine was to get published in the The American Spectator. I finally achieved my aim, in a backhanded way, back in August 1997. Traveling through Texas, I stopped at a newsstand and came across my letter to the editor. Not the longer, fiery one I'd sent under my name, but this one:
A couple thoughts regarding "Is Liberalism Kosher?" by Joseph Shattan.
First, if anti-Semitism is the "socialism of fools," then, per Abrams, we can say that socialism is the Judaism of fools. And if Jews define their religion by their politics -- what Shattan calls "secular liberalism," but what the rest of the world knows as socialism -- then conservatism is by definition "anti-Semitic." Don't think so? Ask yourself: Is the term applied carefully and rigorously to a select group of deserving people -- or is it simply a catch-all smear for anyone on the right? As a conservative, I have been called a "self-hating" Jew and, believe it or not, an "anti-Semite" often enough to
realize that the association of "right-wing" and "anti-Semitic" is more or
less instinctive among my (mostly secular) co-religionists. It has always amused me, sourly, that you can find a ream of articles anytime the "Christian right-wing extremists" attempt to "take over" a school district in Podunk, Virginia, but nary a word on the religiously leftist Jewish cabal surrounding the president of the United States. No, say the ACLU Jews, we must be ever-vigilant lest religion be mixed with politics in the form of a
créche on a public lawn or the commandments in a courtroom. But if half of
the most important advisers surrounding the president pray daily to the god of
Social Justice (what most people would call Theft), we ignore it lest we be blackened as "anti-Semites." My personal opinion is that by making an identity of our religion and the politics that has done so much to destroy this great country, we Jews are setting ourselves up in a very dangerous way.
Why did my ruse work? Why did TAS print my letter? Because it fit
the editors' biases, preconceptions, and hopes. They want to believe: 1) jews are getting more conservative, especially the younger ones (Gettysburg is a college town in rural Pennsylvania; not likely jew would be from there unless a college student); 2) their magazine is popular with the hip young crowd (especially jews; Jeff is not a name an older jew is likely to possess); 3) it is only safe to point out the damage jews do under cover of jewish name, thereby indemnifying the publisher against charges of anti-Semitism. And so, the nonexistent personage "Jeff Sokol" furthering a number of editorial desires, the letter gets printed.
Most of what you read, White man, is vetted in just such a way. Very, very
few men can stand facts that tell against their biases. Very, very few men can
stand personal criticism. Therefore, while many speak in favor of free speech, few practice it. Like morality itself, free speech is an aesthetic ideal, upheld by a minority of Aryans and by virtually no other group. In the Propasphere, everyman comes to think and reason and act like the jew, over time, because of the universal and inescapable conditioning by the media. Everything and everyone becomes an instrument of calculation or utility; valued only for its or his ability to make our dream-world into reality, of no interest in itself. The jews have all the answers. Nothing rebutting their lies is acknowledged as valid, let alone considered as potentially true.
But let's keep some perspective. Plowing too deep to see over the furrow
was what got the TNR editors in trouble in the first place. Too wrapped up in meaningless politics, too cut off from the world of computers and commerce, they were snookered by a wayward jewlet. Let us be wiser than they were. Let us see the Glass imbroglio for what it's worth.
Glass's main mistake was mixing genres. He should have been writing novels
or tv scripts. It is perfectly fine to make up lies about young conservatives and White males in those quarters. TNR promotes exactly the same fictions Hollywood does, but follows different conventions with regard to facts. The dollar stuff is wrong, but the nickel and dime stuff better be right. Mistakes in the small stuff might lead readers to suspect mistakes in the big stuff, and that cannot be allowed.
Perhaps publications need logic editors more than fact-checkers. It's one
thing to misspell, say, Abigail Thernstrom, in a review of her and hubby's work about the racial intelligence gap. It's a nice thing to get right; it should be gotten right; but nothing important changes if it be got wrong. But where's the logic editor to point out that neither reviewed book nor reviewer adduced the genetic IQ differential between blacks and whites as a cause of the test-scores gap? Or pointed out that this is something that all the money and cultural-change and special programs in the world can do nothing about? There's no such thing as a logic editor I've ever heard of. The duty seems to fall somewhere under general editing. So the ship may be headed to Bermuda by way of Nome, Alaska, but the table linen will be neatly arranged.
It is certainly not to absolve jew Glass that I observe that in our New Jew
Dark Age of cultural decline, nigger worship, and widespread disinformation, Glass's fictions are among the least damaging The New Republic committed to print. Our entire media create and sustain myths that wreck nations, and woe to the Aryan David who lifts stone to shatter that glass Goliath. But go rent this movie anyway; you'll enjoy seeing a jew get his comeuppance, even if the Aryans who deliver it remain in the grip of deeper and truly destructive jewish myths.