The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Review: A Clockwork Orange
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

For years now, readers have been urging me to review Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971), which adapts Anthony Burgess’ 1962 novel of the same name. I have resisted, because although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated, so I didn’t want to watch it again. Of course I had first watched it decades ago. But maybe I would see it differently if I gave it another chance. So I approached it with an open mind. But I was right the first time.

A Clockwork Orange is set in Great Britain in a not-too-distant future. Alex (Malcolm McDowell) and his three buddies are violent hooligans who engage in rape, assault, robbery, and wanton destruction. The movie opens with an amphetamine-fueled crime spree. They beat up an old drunk, brawl with another gang, run people off the road while joy riding, then use a confidence trick (“There’s been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?”) to invade a couple’s home, whereupon they beat the man, rape his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.

Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely breeds resentment. One night they decide to rob a wealthy woman’s house. The old accident trick does not work, so Alex breaks in. There is a struggle. She attacks him with a bust of Beethoven, so he kills her with a sculpture of a penis. Hearing sirens, he exits, whereupon his ex-friends clobber him with a bottle and leave him for the police.

Let that be a lesson to you.

Alex is imprisoned for murder. He seeks to ingratiate himself with the authorities by feigning Christian piety. (As a violent sociopath, he finds the Old Testament more to his liking.)

When a new Left-wing government comes into power, they want to free up prison space for political prisoners, so they introduce an experimental cure for his violent sociopathy: the Ludovico technique, which is basically a form of Pavlovian conditioning. Alex is the test subject. He is injected with a nausea-producing drug then forced to watch films of violence, including sexual violence. Eventually, he can’t even think of violence without becoming violently ill. Pronounced cured, he is released into society.

Newly paroled, Alex bumps into the bum that he assaulted, who recognizes him and wants revenge. He calls together his fellow bums to beat Alex, whose Ludovico conditioning makes it impossible for him to fight back.

Ironic, huh?

Let that be a lesson to you.

When the mob of hobos is broken up by two cops, they turn out to be two of Alex’s old gang, the very ones he humiliated. Eager to exact further revenge, they beat him mercilessly and abandon him in the countryside. Alex is helpless to resist.

Ironic, huh?

Let that be a lesson to you.

Alex wanders through the countryside until he takes refuge at the home of the very couple he and his gang brutalized. Ironic, huh? The husband was crippled by the beating. The wife has died and been replaced with a gigantic muscular dork named Julian. The husband figures out who Alex is and drugs him. Then he and some of his friends, who oppose the government that introduced the Ludovico technique, try to drive Alex to commit suicide, hoping to create a scandal that will embarrass the government. Alex throws himself from a window and is severely injured but does not die.

To contain the scandal, the Justice Minister throws the cripple in prison and tries to win Alex’s favor by tending to his wounds. While unconscious, he is also given brain surgery to reverse the Ludovico technique. The happy ending is that Alex returns to being a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism to pure cynicism in the end. Apparently, the book’s final chapter was “redemptive,” but this was omitted as being contrived—as if that weren’t true of the whole story.

But isn’t this all redeemed by a “deep message” about human freedom? No, not really, because the moral psychology of A Clockwork Orange is remarkably crude.

The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don’t necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of his violent sociopathy.

Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that. Alex does not feel sick with empathy for victims, he just feels sick. And his physiological response makes no moral distinctions between violence meted out to the deserving and the undeserving. When he is attacked, he can’t defend himself, because even violence in self-defense makes him sick.

Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn’t exactly make such a “cure” for crime implausible.

Burgess’s “deep” objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex’s freedom, which takes away his humanity. Alex, being a sociopath, takes pleasure in hurting innocent people. The Ludovico treatment teaches him to feel disgust at violence.

But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex’s behavior? Is that also a dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so.

Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.

Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

The Ludovico technique and Burgess’ alternative both depend on a pat dualism between body and mind, which leaves no place for what the ancients called virtues and the moderns called moral sentiments. For the ancients, virtue is rooted in habit. For moral sentiments theorists, our ability to perceive the good is caught up in feelings like empathy and disgust. But to the Ludovico technique, virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach. From the chaplain’s point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath’s lack of virtue or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.

But isn’t Kubrick’s treatment of this material brilliant? No, not really. Kubrick’s treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting. The whole production reminded me of the comics of R. Crumb, who puts his prodigious talent to work churning out pornography, grotesquerie, and world-destroying cynicism. Crumb obviously hates America. He especially hates women. Likewise, the director of A Clockwork Orange obviously hates everything about Great Britain. He also takes particular pleasure in the mockery and degradation of women. Handling such material with technical skill does not redeem it. Indeed, by making it seductive, Kubrick actually it makes it worse.

A Clockwork Orange is violence-porn and porn-porn combined with a middle-brow, moralistic “message” and some classical music. But these function merely as an alibi, like the interviews in Playboy. A Clockwork Orange is obscene in the literal sense of the word: it should not be watched.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Hollywood, Kubrick, Movies 
Hide 270 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. He was a master filmmaker, wasn’t he? I want to write something in length on this subject. This will not be about this film, but rather where we are in culture today, based on my experiences and beliefs.

    As a budding filmmaker from India, the influence western culture has had on me cannot be measured. Literature, film, history-any and every subject. All I have done is devour content for close to 20 years now. Be it the world at war(the greatest documentary) or the books of Hugh Trevor Roeper, or a list of probably 500 films(favorite films: 2001-ASO, Ridley Scott’s Alien)- they have made me what I am. And to me, the reason western canon is the greatest is because of its approach to rationality and a need to find the truth, removed from the prejudices of one’s background be it race, religion, or history. And the sadly-this approach is dying.

    The magic of Kubrick’s films were that they were so “to the point” and devoid of sentimentality. As were the documentaries made back in those days. Just look at today’s films or documentaries and waht do you see? Glossy, plastic, like a videogame, or the next superhero flavor of the month. The stoic demeanor that men possessed in the 70s,80s, and even 90s has died out completely and with it the refined prose and technical skills. Just look at any documentary made in the past 15 years and compare them to something like the World at war. Cheesy reenactments, fast cuts and flashy get your attention will NOT be equal to the soothing voice of Laurence Olivier or the manner in which the interviews were conducted in that series. I miss that style in film and documentaries and it is no wonder that the five years I spent studying in Canada were spent mostly with white men of anglo Saxon background in their 50s or older. I related more and learnt so much.

    There is another article posted an hour ago on the dangers of AI and how technology is destroiying us here on unz, and I would have made this post on there, but it is not open to comments. Put it simple there is way too much content. There was an article in the Guardian, in 2019, interviewing the CEO of netflix and he said and I quote-we are making a 180 new shows this year, or looking at it another way-a new pilot every four days. He said this with pride and glee. But why? Why do we need so much sub par content? Just so idiots can go on Facebook and write “I binge watched this in two days”, and get likes on them? Where are we heading as a civilization? Has media and entertainment become fast food? Devour and move on? I read comments on how people cannot even sit and watch a 5 minute video on youtube! You have newer apps-tiktok and facebook shorts basically condensing their content in 30 seconds! Will there come a time when no one would have seen a Citizen Kane or Blade Runner? I think so. I absolutely think so. I ask this to my friends and even people in general- so what shows are you watching on streaming? And they all say something in the tune of “If I don’t like it in 5 mins i don’t watch”. You could say this was always the case, even with prime time telly in the 70s, but with television atleast there was the feeling of “I have to watch it or Ill miss it”. Personally I find it more engrossing to see a film surfing on telly, than seeing it anytime I wish to. The psychological aspects of too much choice, and choice paralysis comes into play. And hey-I havent even gotten into the biological aspect of things- I am also certain that our collective attention spans are shot.

    Coming back to Kubrick, the master inspires me in that he made only 13 films. But each was well thought out, researched and photographed- deeds not possible in today’s landscape where everyday these streaming conglomerates demand we give ideas and throw a million dollars at us-I know because I am working in this atmosphere. I firmly believe it won’t be terrorism or global warming that will be the doom of mankind, but technology(mainly fast broadband). We will all devour data all day, be upset and offended on a minute to minute basis and simply keep chugging along. So many great books by English and American historians forgotten to time, names like Welles, kurosawa or Fellini names to be filled in fill in the blank questionnaires on general knowledge tests. Our collective IQ is declining, our creativity is dead and we are enamored with useless social justice crap that is the only way people will get attention. These silicon valley nerds-most are virgin losers, destroying the species, one app at a time. The stoic demeanor that was present in the men(and women) back then, lost and forgotten…compare Dick Cavett, Mike Wallace or Johnny Carson to the idiots we have now-Fallon, Kimmel et all. The aforementined asked thoughtful questions, listened to debates and had personalities. Today they ask “Do you have a black friend” or “When was the last time you had sex”. Afraid to offend, pandering to imbeciles. This is worse than the dystopia of Clockwork in my opinion.

    Stanley- Clockwork Orange’s dystopia doesn’t compare to what is happening in reality. Thank God you left when you did.
    Fantastic film by the way. My third favorite Kubrick after 2001 and Eyes Wide Shut.
    Cheers

  2. black dog says:

    I largely agree. However, the general opinion in Britain at the time the film was made was that “Liberal values” of the 60s were leaving us very little to have values about. The modern notion of teenage started during the 60s (in Britain) and thuggish behaviour amongst teens was seen as a major problem and a sign of societal decline. Spurred on by “leftist influences”. This explains Alex and his “depots” speaking Nadsat, the Russian/schoolboy argot.

    The supporters of the brainwashing technique used to “cure” Alex pointed out that they don’t care HOW it works, so long as it does work. A sentiment most British people would support. This was the era of a “short, sharp shock”, borstals etc. There was no reason to hope that the future would be any better. I think the movie is largely a reflection of this pessimism that the future would have more crudeness, bad fashions, teen delinquency, rape etc. It seemed logical.

    • Replies: @RJ Macready
  3. @black dog

    It’s strange, to me Kubrick seemed English with English sensibilities for some reason but he was actually an American from New York. Ofcourse he spent the majority of his later life in England.

    • Replies: @Black Dog
  4. @RJ Macready

    “There is another article posted an hour ago on the dangers of AI and how technology is destroiying us here on unz, and I would have made this post on there, but it is not open to comments.“

    Paul Craig Roberts is an excellent author, but his refusal to accept comments makes him come across as arrogant and easily butthurt.

    • Replies: @meamjojo
    , @Rev. Spooner
  5. nsa says:

    The Burgess novel explored a simple question: is it good enough if someone does the right thing (abhors gratuitous violence and carnage) for the wrong reason (Pavlovian programming). The novel incorporated a bastardized lexicon with a short unnecessary dictionary at the very end to help the reader along. As with his also futuristic Wanting Seed, Burgess’s Clockwork is a satire of the absurd lefty politics of his day. The novel has aged well, as sixty years later the lefty politics of the day are even more absurd.

    • Agree: Macumazahn
  6. Rahan says:

    Cannot agree. In fact, this review, and I say this with love, comes across like virtue-signaling, albeit coming from a somewhat different field.

    The book is brilliant, also on the purely technical prose level; and the movie is Kubrick’s counterpunch to his own clean, shiny, and optimistic Space Odyssey futurism, like Heinlein’s hyper-masculine Starship Troopers was the counterpunch to his own free love grokking Stranger in A Strange Land.

    The point of Clockwork Orange is the urban dysfunctional and corrupt hell which the described Britain of the future becomes, with social cohesion and morals falling so low that society can’t even deal with gangs of high-school psychopaths, without resorting to direct brainwashing conditioning. And only does this, finally stopping pretending that the gangs aren’t a problem, in order to free up space in prison for dissidents.

    The film shows very visually how the older generation can’t grasp where their society is now, and are either helpless victims, or cynically try to use the degeneracy to their own ends, while the younger generation take to the chaos and lies like fish to water.

    Also, and this is shown better in the book, the still younger generation–those around 12-13, already speak slang which even teenagers Alex finds incomprehensible, and their sexual (and overall) morals overlap with those of Alex completely, who in his own generation is still pretty “freakish”, but to the young ones he fits just right. This illustrates very well the concept of constantly accelerating generational degeneracy and cultural fragmentation.

    The ending is of course not “redemption”, the ending is a failure of “official society” on all levels, plus the main psychopath obviously on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts.

    And making Alex the psychopath fascinating, and the film well-done, well, yes. That’s how you write an interesting book and make a good film.

    Burgess later wrote a novella “1985”, which describes a degenerate leftist dystopia in Britain, which Muslims are robustly taking over. Not as technically brilliant, but also a terrific little book. With an excellent essay on Orwell’s 1984 at the start.

  7. When Kubrick’s movie version of “The Clockwork Orange” premiered, Burgess was asked what he thought of it. After a half century, I cannot recall Burgess’s exact words but they were to the effect that the movie perfectly illustrated the points he had made in his novel.

    Most naively interpreted this as an endorsement of the movie. However, Burgess was adept with words. I understood this to be a subtle barb. Burgess’s words had an alternative implication, i.e. that the movie’s sugar coating of violence and vicious sexuality, its romanticized depiction of the protagonist, Alex, and the critical acclaim and popularity, which the movie achieved, actually demonstrated how thoroughly society was degenerating into the amoral dystopia which Burgess had envisioned in his novel.

    OTOH, my personal opinion is that despite the moral repugnance which the movie engendered for me it is, like all of Kubrick’s movies, a cinematic masterpiece. It’s an unfortunate fact that some art can be immoral and even hostile to truth yet still have aesthetic virtue.

    • Agree: mike99588
  8. The problem is that Kubrick seems to take pleasure in creating the violence and rape scenes which throws the whole movie off.

    It’s like he can’t decide if Alex should be his unique and wonderful self even if it means raping and killing people. The scene of him of setting his rank in the gang is a celebration of violence as an art form.

    Kubrick clearly thought that Alex beating the woman with a giant d-k must have been great fun and anyone in the stodgy British chattering class probably had it coming anyways. There seems to be nothing wrong with cruising the British countryside for a bit of the ultraviolence as long as you have style and can show off your good taste by listening to Beethoven.

    Are we supposed to pity Alex when the husband tries to kill him? Kubrick seems to think so but who could blame a husband that wants to avenge his wife? According to Kubrick he is really boring and went gay anyways.

    The movie is a mess but still worth watching as a sort of shock to the senses. Some say the book is better which while true on a story level it’s also a bit of chore since there is so much fictitious slang. My copy in fact had a compendium slang dictionary. So you spend half the time looking up all these words that the author made up. Fun.

    What I don’t get is why anyone would want you to review the movie. I would put it towards to top of the 70s rape and violence trash heap but that isn’t saying much. If anything I have more respect for the blatantly violent biker flicks like Wild Angels because they at least aren’t trying to pretend that they have some deep message about society.

    It’s one of those movies that would have much worse reviews if a famous director wasn’t attached to it. Great acting by Malcom though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.

  9. @Rahan

    You should check out his The Wanting Seed.

  10. @Rahan

    The ending is of course not “redemption”, the ending is a failure of “official society” on all levels, plus the main psychopath obviously on the way to find a comfy place for himself in the new society of total hypocrisy. Clockwork Orange describes to a large extent the GloboHomo society of today, but with pre-cyberpunk and pre-great replacement instruments and concepts.

    The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering to them.

    It would be like creating a movie about the degenerate nature of porn but the first 20 minutes is a gang bang. Oh but the main characters will later change and find complexity in their predicament. It’s a social criticism of modern society you see.

    • Agree: 36 ulster
    • Thanks: Trevor Lynch
    • Replies: @Pheasant
    , @Exile
    , @36 ulster
  11. Mr. Ed says:

    I agree with TL that the movie was long and dull. Have not read any of Burgess.

    • Replies: @Rahan
  12. Trinity says:

    This had to be one of the dumbest movies that I ever TRIED to watch. Was underway on a ship and they played this movie for us to watch, got up and left after only maybe 15-20 minutes into the film. “Overrated” is too mild a word for it. GARBAGE FILM. Out of 5 stars I don’t even give it half a star.

  13. Pheasant says:

    ‘For years now, readers have been urging me to review Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971), ‘

    Can we please have a review of the White nationalist classic coming to America 1988?

    • LOL: AndrewR
  14. Pheasant says:
    @RJ Macready

    Kubrick was a Jew albiet a Waspish one.

    • Replies: @Geowhizz
  15. gay troll says:

    Overlook Hotel = Lookout Mountain Laboratory. A11 work and no play…

    • LOL: Pheasant
  16. SafeNow says:

    Good review. I will add one positive point: It is relevant to current events. Roger Ebert pointed out that Kubrick is playing with the idea that in a world where the ruling pattern of thought is criminal insanity, one might as well be criminally insane. This turned out to be prescient, because the conversion to woke insanity has taken hold. I could give dozens of examples, but I will stay with the Beethoven theme of the movie. Beethoven has recently been proclaimed an “above average “ composer, and a supremicist, worthy of cancellation. Oxford is now debating canceling musical notation… if the world is crazy, might as well join them.

    • Agree: Alfred
  17. Petronius says:

    I disagree completely, this is a major misreading of the movie.

    I think the review misses two things:

    1. This is a Swiftian satire, hence the deliberately grotesque exaggerations

    2. Kubrick was heavily influenced by Robert Ardrey at that time and the movie is all about “anthropological pessimism”. So when the reviewer asks: “Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.” – Well yes, but Kubrick/Burgess don’t mean this in a humanistic or sentimental, but in a rather disturbing, deeply anti-Rousseauian way. Kubrick’s view of human nature at that time and the role of society was pure Joseph de Maistre (hence right wing in a way). But there is no easy way out here for both the Rousseauists and Anti-Rousseauists. That is what makes this movie so deeply disturbing for any viewer, either liberal or conservative.

    In Burgess’ and Kubrick’s view, any attempt to radically erase the destructive sides of human nature for good would also erase the creative sides (exemplified by Beethoven). Now this is very relevant in an age when transhumanist utopian ideas abound and there are plans around to f.e. erase “racism” and “hate” through genetics or medication. The behaviourist “therapies” in C.O. maybe crude and primitive, but they foreshadow much worse and much more effective attempts of manipulating and altering human nature for good.

    It also seems as if the author of this review does applaud the Ludovico treatment, because it is practical on sadists and sociopaths. But this is not about Alex as an individual, It is about the very idea that human behaviour can and should be programmed and conditioned like a clockwork to erase evil for good. The proponents of the Ludovico therapy claim explicitely that this is a MORAL progress for the human race, while the priest (not Burgess or Kubrick, though we can assume that they would agree) rightfully objects that there can be no moral where there is no choice. Alex remains a domesticated animal, following the pleasure principle. Both things are true: Alex becomes a circus animal in a disgusting, self-congratulating technocrat government show, AND the priests humanistic impulse to forge a true, morally capable “christian” human being of Alex, who seems totally instinct and desire driven, may be naive and in vain.

    So there is no progress here, but a new and disquieting way for the state to treat human beings like machines that can be tampered with. The movie rightfully hints that this is potentially just as evil as Alex’s deeds.

  18. Alfred says:

    I watched the movie in London when it came out. I found it hilarious. Almost a comedy. A bit ahead of its time. I guess there is something wrong with me.

    • Replies: @Pheasant
  19. Pheasant says:
    @John Johnson

    ‘The hypocrisy is on the part of Kubrick who pretends to be criticizing degenerate morals while at the same time catering to them.’

    Reminds me of eyes wide shut with its occult themes but in the first few shots we see a fully nude Nicole kidman viewed from behind.

    It is very Jewish behaviour although I know Kubrick was rather Waspish and self hating as a Jew.

  20. meamjojo says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    I refuse to read any of PCR articles because of his comment policy.

  21. meamjojo says:

    People have demanded that you review a 50 year old movie? This is an April Fool’s joke, yes?

  22. Pheasant says:
    @Alfred

    I am not a sociopath but I laugh when I hear singing in the rain… I am not thinking of Gene Kelly on rollerskates.

    • LOL: Black Dog
    • Replies: @Alfred
  23. Petronius says:

    @Rahan

    I agree completely, and I find it stunning how a view from the right could miss all these points so very relevant today, much more than in 1970.

    As for the aesthetics of the movie, I find them original, compelling and fascinating. Alex is not really a realistic figure, but a conceptual one, about the “duality of man”, as adressed in a scene in FULL METAL JACKET. The terrible and the glorious things of Western civilisation, the beauty and the terror, are united in the Beethoven lover Alex, and in the concept of the movie as whole. There is also a lot of Nietzsche in here.

    Also note how Kubrick ridicules liberal intellectuals as hypocritical buffoons with the Patrick Magee character.

    I also find it puzzling how Kubrick links civilisation and human creativity to violence, just as he did when he famously cut from the weaponised prehistoric bone to the bone-like futuristic space ship in “2001”. He is very, very close to Spengler in “Man and Technics” here. In Kubrick’s view, violence permeates much of civilisation and its instutions needs to be rather “tended” than eliminated, as you would tend a fire and watch out so it does not burn everything.

    And so, he has always stressed that FULL METAL JACKET is NOT an “anti-war movie”, even though he depiction of the military drill is scathing (nonetheless, Sgt. Hartman remains the most memorable figure of the movie). The soldiers in that movie are not Alexes, but they get sort of trained to awaken their “inner Alex” and put him into service of the army and its aims by becoming “killer machines”.

    Kubrick famously was obsessed with Napoleon and thought of him as the greatest man that ever lived. Now Napoleon was a genius, who was a unique creator and reformer of civilisation and state power and organisation, a perfect example of a “Faustian man”, but who also flooded practically all of Europe with two decades of war, an art he was VERY good at.

    Overall, C. O. is a sardonic monster of a movie, with an endlessly stunning philosophical debt full of contradictions, that has no easy answers and tries to be as nasty as possible for all sides of the political spectrum.

    I think another White Nationalist reviewer, Yggdrasil, understood the meaning of this movie far better – unfortunately I cannot find his review anymore.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  24. Black Dog says:
    @RJ Macready

    I didn’t know that. I always thought he was English. Although he does seem to have a better understanding of America than most British directors. I should have known. Thanks for enlightening me.

    • Replies: @A Half Naked Fakir
  25. @John Johnson

    “According to Kubrick he is really boring and went gay anyways.”

    I’m not sure where you and Lynch are getting the gay angle from. The David Prowse character was supposed to be a hired caretaker, as wheelchair-bound elderly are wont to need. And yes, that was Darth Vader himself.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  26. Magylson says:

    This is lowbrow, but a Kubrick film that wasn’t beautifully shot. 2001, paths of glory, Dr strange love and Barry Lyndon were all a feast for the eye.

  27. Anonymous[273] • Disclaimer says:

    I tried to watch this film when it first appeared. I couldn’t take it and left the theater. My daughter, roughly in middle school, was required to read it. to show her new knowledge she repeated “the same old in and out”. Made me wonder about the school, which I did frequently.

  28. IvyMike says:

    Read the book, thought it pretty good, and saw the movie, it was okay, MM was great, always loved Singing In The Rain so that scene was memorable, this was in 1972, never have and never will revisit book or movie. It was little noted or long remembered but the London slums of the 60s were patrolled by Droog like gangs of young whites who called themselves “Bovver Boys”, Cockney slang for Bother Boys. They sported beautifully shined combat boots they called Bovver Boots, which were used to kick their victims into bloody submission. Lawr Enforcement never really dealt with them, mostly they grew older and settled into shitty jobs and must have watched bemused as immigrants took over their beloved turf.
    Oddly enough this article has evoked the most thoughtful responses I’ve read on Unz.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    , @plannumber9
  29. @Hapalong Cassidy

    I’m not sure where you and Lynch are getting the gay angle from. The David Prowse character was supposed to be a hired caretaker, as wheelchair-bound elderly are wont to need.

    If you have your caretaker lift weights in a red speedo and purple tank that might be a tip off.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
  30. I agree with Petronius. It was satire.

    It was meant to shock and offend and get people thinking.

  31. Rahan says:
    @Mr. Ed

    I agree with TL that the movie was long and dull. Have not read any of Burgess.

    Here on this page the initial essay ends and “1985” starts. 1985 is a fast short book, but very good.
    https://graycity.net/anthony-burgess/page,12,31884-1985.html

    Zamyatin’s “We” from 1921, which inspired Brave New World (1931) and 1984 (1948).
    https://graycity.net/yevgeny-zamyatin/209745-we.html
    We’re actually much deeper in Zamyatin’s We than people tend to think. Banging strangers isn’t yet assigned randomly (just encouraged through Tinder etc), living in transparent apartments is not yet mandatory (but having no privacy is almost the norm), and using “special rays” to get rid of primitive inherited emotions and passions is not yet a thing (although drugging everyone and scrambling their endocrine systems is), but when you update the initial concepts of the author from a hundred years ago, he definitely sensed the broad outlines.

    Brave New World (1931) https://graycity.net/aldous-huxley/31557-brave_new_world.html adds the constant subliminal brainwashing, the daily happy pills, the dismantling of the family structure, and everyone accepting that “they were born this way”.

    1984 (1948) https://graycity.net/george-orwell/470726-1984_penguin.html adds the total surveillance, the thoughtcrimes, the newspeak, the unpersoning, the scrubbing of the past.

    Bradbury’s Fahrenheit (1953) https://www.bookfrom.net/ray-bradbury/31598-fahrenheit_451.html adds the burning of books which “offend people”, and the dehumanization and criminalization of the “monsters” who hoard such offensive books instead of handing them over. And all good citizens constantly listening to generic music and gossip, watching huge TV screens, to the extent of being utterly surprised when the nukes really start flying.
    (vintage Soviet TV version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_9RtSYqPPs)

    Burgess’s Clockwork Orange (1962), and in a less intense, more melancholic way his 1985 (1978), https://graycity.net/anthony-burgess/ simply show drab, inefficient, and cruel leftists dystopias only by degrees different from the then “reality”. In Clockwork Orange it’s focused on youth gangs, sex, and drugs, while in 1985 it’s focused on one normal family man trying to grasp how things became how they are, while in the background everything is slowly falling apart and Muslims are quietly taking over.

    **

    And perhaps motivation for people to start learning the languages of the main civilizational competitors: Pelevin’s iPhuck 10 from 2017, which will never be translated into English for self-evident reasons.

    It’s a cyberpunk detective story told from the point of view of a police algorithm. After a faulty super flu vaccine makes everyone sterile (or rather unable to have healthy kids), growing new humans in the lab is the norm. Gender is meaningless, the client of the police algorithm is a woman with testicles, which she had implanted just to enjoy the testosterone boost, but still identifies as a woman. Just like everyone, she only has virtual sex, because real sex is for degenerate fascist perverts known as “piggies”. The moment a piggie man and a piggie woman start making out, the closest electronic gadgets start blasting feminist propaganda on how disgusting and humiliating it is for a woman to be banged by a man.

    And of course, the new iPhuck 10 is a semi-AI sex toy for the upper middle classes, which randomly goes into various BDSM and fetish modes, in order to comply with diversity mandates.

  32. One reading of the film is as a dark, slanted allegory for England’s history as a conquering nation from 1066 to its eventual post-WW2 shrinking to be too afraid to fight or conquer anymore.

    The droogs represent England, or English martial spirit. As the the film begins, they assault an old drunk hobo singing Molly Malone (representing Ireland), a group of similar ruffians (representing Scotland) who are about to rape a girl and jump off a stage (the Scottish Highlands, or perhaps just north of the English border generally) to fight the English, and, finally, successful assault against a cultured, peace-loving old man and his beautiful wife (representing either Wales or France). In all the assaults, the ruffians make no apologies, and, in fact, later, in sequence are seen walking around wearing various hats of other martial nations, showing the same conquering, harsh martial spirit has been alive in others.

    All of this is brought to a halt when their schemes get them caught. The leader of the martial spirit is brainwashed to hate violence (English pols who apologize for creating an Empire and conquering and/or are now too milquetoast to fight, like Chamberlain), while his former fellow cohorts abuse him (internal civil strife), as does his former victims (victim culture).

    But there is an upside(?). By bringing him so low, the conditioning is broken, and his old violent martial spirit returns.

    Anyway, that was just my symbolic reading, ignoring the other readings I’ve had of the film.

  33. @IvyMike

    Singing In The Rain so that scene was memorable

    Agreed. Especially to the audience of that time, who had grown up with that classic film as one of the epitomes of positive musical cinema, to see it twisted so darkly into a rap and destructive attack was searing in the mind. It would be as if a hit adult movie today had a sarcastic, loud rendition of “Let it Go” while a rape or slaughter was occurring.

    A Clockwork Orange was, in part, Kubrick experimenting with the way to shock an audience in a way that stayed.

  34. @John Johnson

    It made sense in the story. The old man’s home had been assaulted and wife raped because he was old, weak, and unintimidating. Hiring a giant, well-muscled, intimidating-looking man as a guard is equivalent to building your castle walls up and putting archers all around.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  35. Exile says:
    @John Johnson

    Pornography that pretends to criticize pornography had a particularly odious run with Netflix pedo-perverse “Cuties” last year.

    Degeneracy among the chattering classes has been with us since the beginning of man. I can’t speak for Burgess but I’ve seen enough of Kubrick’s work to find him a somewhat insightful and self-aware pervert and weirdo at best.

  36. Usually a Kubrick film is a “can’t miss” but I thought he missed with this one, too. Watched it many years ago and, because I have appreciated his other films a lot, like the reviewer, I thought maybe something had gotten by me the first time I watched it. After reading this review I will avoid giving “A Clockwork Orange” a second chance.

  37. The psychological aspect of this movie and Skinnerian techniques made this movie interesting and the rest of it showed psychopathy on steroids (and really, Alex’s parents were an abomination, allowing him to behave the way he did….how stupid can parents be, pandering like they did?) But I never considered it dystopian (until now, what with the affluenza kids coming to the fore including the Antif-ites…white upper middle class and upper class psychos we see today….my daughter had to deal with these creeps at a counseling center for over a year until they shut the place down).
    Not sure I could watch it again…and my hubby hates this movie! Good review, Mr. Lynch.

  38. Al Ross says:

    When Burgess ( Wilson ) was stationed in Kota Baru , the only place to drink respectably was the airport bar .

    Wilson’s then wife a promiscuous , poisonous Welsh alcoholic called Lynn , invited my friend back to the Education Dept bungalow wherein she offered herself but was politely rejected.

    I complimented my friend on his strict morals.

    “Oh no , that’s not it. Wilson was reputed to be a voyeur and I thought I heard noises from the bedroom wardrobe.”

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  39. Bolteric says:
    @RJ Macready

    14 films, if you count the faked moon landings…

    I think Lynch’s point is valid. After recovering from all kinds of mind fucks given by Hollywood and the Media over the last two decades, the wantoness of Clockwork is nauseating, why go back?

    Eyes Wide Shut is solid, but muted.

  40. 36 ulster says:
    @John Johnson

    That’s what annoyed me about author Cormac McCarthy; in interviews he would lament the end of moral codes, like a latter-day Sir Tristram or Bertrand du Guesclin decrying “knights these days.” While, of course, rubbing our noses in gratuitous, nihilistic violence. Years ago, he took his talents for depictions of evil–and obsessive use of a single conjunction–and departed Knoxville for Santa Fe, a place where celebrities put themselves out to pasture. A curious decision, that, but maybe an appropriate move.

  41. mike99588 says:

    After more innocent times like a teen’s life could be in 50s-60s US suburbia, Clockwork Orange was a masterful, edged, wake up call to the depravity and degeneracy of socialized everything like Britain.

    • Replies: @Polistra
  42. Ploppy says:

    The movie implies that the Ludovico technique never worked in the first place. Alex has every incentive to fake it working since it’s getting him out of life in prison, and the corrupt government has every incentive to play along since it frees up their prison for dissidents if they can pretend to “cure” psychopaths. The governor even specifically notices Alex among the prison population and selects him for the procedure after Alex feeds him a tremendous line of bullshit about his murder being accidental, identifying him as an accomplished liar who will play along.

    All of Alex’s episodes of reacting to the treatment are in front of an audience when there’s no real threat to him (the topless woman and the feeble bums). The policemen from his former gang beat him without much opportunity to fight back, and jumping from a second story is a pretty lame suicide attempt. Finally, after the scandal came out how could the government have instantly reversed the effects and cured Alex? Normally it takes a lot of therapy to work people out of phobias.

    The moral of the movie wasn’t about the value of free will, it was about how sociopaths thrive in a sociopathic society.

  43. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rahan

    And making Alex the psychopath fascinating, and the film well-done, well, yes. That’s how you write an interesting book and make a good film.

    We have to feel sorry for Alex in order for the a story to work. But at the same time we feel deeply uncomfortable about feeling sorry for him.

    The violence is aesthetically pleasing which is also necessary. Whether we like it or not we do find violence aesthetically pleasing. So we enjoy the scenes of violence, and at the same time we feel deeply uncomfortable about enjoying them.

    The solution that the liberal government in the story adopts is to force us to be moral, but if we’re forced to be moral then morality no longer has any meaning. And liberals still want to force us to be moral.

    We’re supposed to be deeply disturbed by both the book and the film, and deeply disturbed by our own reactions.

    Both Burgess and Kubrick assumed their audiences were capable of coping with grown-up concepts and with moral complexities.

    I get the impression the reviewer would have been happier with a set of safe cosy moral platitudes. Both liberals and conservatives have offered us safe cosy moral platitudes and it hasn’t helped.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  44. Alfred says:
    @Pheasant

    I think Anthony Burgess would have had the last laugh. Thugs have turned into policemen in both Melbourne and London. In the USA, these uniformed thugs watch the BLM destroying small businesses – and arrest anyone who tries to defend his property.

    That is why I think that this movie was ahead of its time.

    Don’t forget that 1971 was at the height of the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-76) I suspect that may have inspired Burgess – subconsciously perhaps.

    My college, in South Kensington, was near the Chinese Embassy or its offshoot – near the High Street. Students used to go to the embassy to get their copy of Mao’s little Red Book. We all thought that what went on in China was a big joke. The media played up the fact that the Chinese were “different”. Even the 3 Chinese in my class had no idea what was really going on – they were from Singapore and Hong Kong. We did not know that millions of educated people were being murdered.

    • Replies: @gotmituns
  45. Dumbo says:

    The book is good, especially because of the invented slang in which it was written.

    The movie, because of Kubrick’s tendency to exaggerate and be “satirical” (when having little sense of humor), is not as good. Pauline Kael wrote a good review of it when it came out. Kubrick also ruined Lolita, by the way.

    (Not saying that all Kubrick movies are bad. Paths of Glory and the first part of Full Metal Jacket are masterpieces).

    Lynch seems to misunderstand the message of both the book and the movie (which are opposite, by the way – the film removes the final chapter, although that might not have been fault, as the American edition was initially published without the last chapter).

    If I well remember, Burgess didn’t like the movie at all, and he even resented that this became his most famous novel, when he was a specialist in Shakespeare and an author of dozens of books.

  46. First, the title. I first heard the expression “as queer as a clockwork orange” in a London pub before the Second World War. It is an old Cockney slang phrase, implying a queerness or madness so extreme as to subvert nature, since could any notion be more bizarre than that of a clockwork orange?

    A Clockwork Orange in the words of the author of the book:

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/06/04/the-clockwork-condition

    • Thanks: Jus' Sayin'...
  47. at the same time as Kubrick’s movie came out …

    Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971), spent eighteen weeks on the New York Times Best-Seller list.

    Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a 1971 book by American [“behaviorist”] psychologist B. F. Skinner. Skinner argues that entrenched belief in free will and the moral autonomy of the individual (which Skinner referred to as “dignity”) hinders the prospect of using scientific methods to modify behavior for the purpose of building a happier and better-organized society.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Freedom_and_Dignity

    and then there was a total demolition job of the book by Noam Chomsky, not out of moralist concerns, but because he thought the book was stupid, crude and and unscientific …

    In his speculations on human behavior, which are to be clearly distinguished from his experimental investigations of conditioning behavior, B. F. Skinner offers a particular version of the theory of human malleability. The public reception of his work is a matter of some interest. Skinner has been condemned as a proponent of totalitarian thinking and lauded for his advocacy of a tightly managed social environment. He is accused of immorality and praised as a spokesman for science and rationality in human affairs. He appears to be attacking fundamental human values, demanding control in place of the defense of freedom and dignity. There seems something scandalous in this, and since Skinner invokes the authority of science, some critics condemn science itself, or “the scientific view of man,” for supporting such conclusions, while others assure us that science will “win out” over mysticism and irrational belief.

    A close analysis shows that the appearance is misleading. Skinner is saying nothing about freedom and dignity, though he uses the words “freedom” and “dignity” in several odd and idiosyncratic senses. His speculations are devoid of scientific content and do not even hint at general outlines of a possible science of human behavior. Furthermore, Skinner imposes certain arbitrary limitations on scientific research which virtually guarantee continued failure.

    The Case Against B.F. Skinner
    Noam Chomsky
    The New York Review of Books, December 30, 1971

    https://chomsky.info/19711230/

    re: Robert Crumb … I’d say Crumb was/is a genius, and to say he hated America is odd … I don’t think he had any agenda, he worked like the French Surrealists, let the unconsciousness bring out what it will, without filters and censorship, and clearly Crumb’s unconsciousness was American, and he had a deep love for American artifacts as cars , houses, clothes etc …

  48. “Kubrick’s treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting. The whole production reminded me of the comics of R. Crumb, who puts his prodigious talent to work churning out pornography, grotesquerie, and world-destroying cynicism. Crumb obviously hates America.”

    I think the author of this article has no idea what he is talking about. Fascinating how something can go completely over someone’s head…and I don’t really even like the film.

    “He especially hates women. Likewise, the director of A Clockwork Orange obviously hates everything about Great Britain. He also takes particular pleasure in the mockery and degradation of women. Handling such material with technical skill does not redeem it. Indeed, by making it seductive, Kubrick actually it makes it worse.”

    I get the feeling our author is a “male” feminist type lol

  49. Alfred says:
    @Petronius

    Kubrick famously was obsessed with Napoleon and thought of him as the greatest man that ever lived.

    Napoleon was the only person seemingly to understand the importance of cannon in the sort of warfare the huge armies indulged in. The British and Germans caught on late. Waterloo was largely lost because his cannon were not able to be put to good use. Wellington’s army hid behind a small ridge. Soldiers were instructed to lie down and cavalry told to dismount.

    In fact, the French obsession with artillery started under the monarchy. Napoleon took advantage of this development.

    In Spain, cannon were not of much use against a guerilla-style war. In Russia, after Borodino, cannon became little used.

    Today, the West is obsessed with surface ships and aircraft. After a few thrashings, they will learn of the importance of rockets. Old habits die hard.

  50. mcohen says:

    Best part was the umbrella grannies.The rest was crap

  51. I’ve always known this movie was trash and avoided it like the plague. What demented person’s have been “urging” the author to review it? Do they need somebody else’s approval before they watch it? I never understood these type of people who make degenerate movies like this and those by Quentin Terantino into movie classics. Who wants to watch more degeneracy when we already live in a degenerate society? Just turn on the news and get your thrills.

    • Replies: @gnbRC
  52. Lochearn says:

    I saw this movie in Britain when I was nineteen. It made a deep impression on me and I wanted to smash up cars when I left the cinema. But I have no wish to see the film again. The brilliance of the character of Alex and the performance by Malcolm is what stood out. Malcolm was to Clockwork Orange what Tom Hanks was to Forrest Gump: born to play the part. He had a similar role in the Lindsay Anderson film “If” which I did want to see again and did enjoy.

    I memorized a dialogue from that first viewing which was almost word for word.

    Fred: Do you understand, Alex? Have I made myself clear?

    Alex: As an unmuddied lake, Fred. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. You can rely on me, Fred.

    The film is peculiarly British. It has the pent up force, mad energy and pessimism you find in the music of Joy Division, whose members grew up in the concrete and the rain of Manchester’s council estates.

    • Replies: @F. Galton
  53. Malla says:

    Yggdrasil has written an amazing review on this movie
    https://web.archive.org/web/20051220045554/http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/orange.htm

    A must read. Tip: Download his entire website (whitenationalism.com), ((they)) are trying to scrub it off the web it seems. BTW below : Inner party/ IP–> Chosenites

    Some snippets
    “The very aversion therapy that the inner party psychiatrist was administering to Alex late in the movie to curb his criminality, Kubrick was administering to his fellow tribesmen right from the opening scene, to curb their liberal universalist illusions.
    The setting is in a future time in which the people speak a language which is a mixture of English and Russian. The protagonist, Alex, is a high school dropout born and raised in a public housing project. Alex is what you would call a tabula rasa – a blank slate – from a cultural standpoint. His parents have no culture at all, they are remarkably obedient and dull witted. Both parents work and both spend all their free time in front of the telly, being passively entertained.
    Alex’s parents are exactly what the inner party wishes us all to become.
    They work, they consume, and they are passive and obedient, with no thoughts of their own.
    They are new socialist man – interchangeable parts with no sense of their own group identity or uniqueness – no traditions, no culture, and no reactionary and troublesome notions to pass on to their children.

    But their only son is another story altogether.
    He very much prefers active entertainment.”
    …snip…
    “Differences in aesthetic preference and perception provoke and sharpen conflict rather than reduce it. Indeed, this idea that high art is a universal which can lead humans into a uniform brotherhood of man is absurd. Thus, Kubrick’s message that high art is a differentiating mechanism – fraught with potential for conflict and competition – is broadly consistent with Professor Geoffrey Miller’s thesis in The Mating Mind, that our brains evolved primarily as ornaments of fitness in the highly competitive sexual selection process.
    Siamese twin to the Freudian attack is the Freudian promise, namely that peace and universal harmony can be attained through sexual liberation and “free love.” – if only sex can be stripped of the competitive and aggressive baggage imposed by repressive society.
    Alex’s denoument occurs at another home invasion fraught with symbolic content. The home is occupied by a conspicuously IP looking woman (the cat lady) with her house decorated with a conspicuously IP collection of erotic art objects and paintings. When Alex enters, she becomes remarkably aggressive and assaultive, swinging a bust of Beethoven (his [European] art) as a weapon against him, as he grabs one of her large phallic sculptures (her [Jewish] art) and deploys it to defend himself.
    As this sexual/artistic combat is danced out to the tune of Rossini’s Thieving Magpie, Kubrick explodes the Freudian myth of peace and harmony through free sex so popular among his own tribesmen,….”

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Miville
  54. etype says:

    The author would obviously be much happier watching much simpler, sunday afternoon type films: westerns and war movies. His pretense of logically debunking the various premises of the film is juvenile and unaware that life is not necessarily logical – nor does life or art need to be logical to present truth, often truths can be presented in no other way. It’s obvious the author was frightened by the picture, and is reacting with a type of false bravado. Reading the authors thoughts left me with a strong clue as to why the left wins, and that this man should not be reviewing films.

    • Agree: dfordoom, Oscar Peterson
  55. @Rahan

    I’ll say this much. As miserable as the world of ACO is, it’s a paradise compared to current UK.

    ACO’s UK is nearly all-white. Thugs listen to classical music. And humor is very much a part of life.

  56. “A Clockwork Orange” is enormously entertaining for guys with three-digit IQs. It might be the single most all-around entertaining movie ever made for highbrow men. Kubrick is still well remembered, but Burgess is almost forgotten nowadays. Yet Burgess was a giant figure in highbrow culture in the 1970s.

    On the other hand, it is also the kind of movie you can’t make anymore, and probably for good reason. It was made just a few years after censorship of movies was ended, and you can see why censorship had its supporters.

    I counted seven scenes of rape or attempted rape in ACO. You can make make arguments about how morals must have declined in the 50 years since 1971, but at least we have very few movies these days with seven rape scenes.

    • Agree: Alfred
  57. Things I Learned From Clockwork Orange

    …If you thought Judd Nelson & Estevez were the oldest high school kids going than you did not see a 27 year old Malcolm McDowell playing a 15 year old.

    …In the future, Britain will be populated by nothing but hammy Hammer Horror Studio regulars like Patrick Macnee.

    …Probation officers administer social work by crotch-grabbing.

    …Not only high art sculptures but ice cream cones will be molded in the shape of penises in the not-to-distant future.

    …Instead of buying a gun the best defense is hiring Darth Vader to live with you.

    …A cunning criminal always sings the same song he sang during a home invasion while in the house of a former victim.

    …Futuristic England looks like a 1970’s porn film set with deep shag.

    …A government that is concerned about its public image will always release an unskilled teen killer former inmate/experiment with no money & nowhere to go.

  58. chrimony says:

    Agreed. Saw it in college, because you know, college, where the twisted and weird is celebrated. Even then I found it repugnant and without any redeeming values.

  59. Malla says:
    @Malla

    And finally, we get the conspicuously IP (Jewish) psychiatrist Brodsky, who has developed a new aversion therapy. He is going to remake Alex by showing him movies – which, of course, is exactly what the IP has been doing to all of us for the past 70 years. Only Brodsky has an advantage – a serum that allows him to get the job done in 2 weeks.

    Outside of a small group of Hollywood insiders, Brodsky’s therapy chair would appear to be a new invention. But Kubrick knew full well that all of the Hollywood insiders would instantly recognize it as an adaptation of Annie the Analizer, a contraption they have used for years to wire up people and test their emotional reactions to various scenes in movies, to make sure that there were enough pleasing scenes and sensations to compensate for the unpleasant propaganda content. Of course, Brodsky’s modified Annie the Analizer was intended to do the opposite, namely to condition Alex to view scenes pleasurable to him as unpleasant.

    The climax of the movie is a brilliantly crafted scene in which Alex recognizes that Ludwig van’s Glorious Ninth is being used as backround in a remake by Brodsky of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens as a means of making him sick at the sight of Naziism. Thus the scene is Kubrick’s wicked stab at his fellow tribsmen (Jews) – forcing them to see and hear the clear and dramatic answer to the question why a nation that had produced Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms could have produced the Third Reich, as they are forced to recoil in horror at the juxtaposition of Beethoven with the Nuremberg rally – a juxtaposition which Alex vehemently protests for different reasons. It is artistic cognitive dissonance at its finest, as the IP is compelled to identify with Alex and his plight as they are being conditioned by Kubrick to see Ludwig van’s Glorious Ninth in what is to them a new and repellent light.

    In the scene which follows, the waspy interior minister displays his creation to the public and announces that Alex, sickened by both his artistic preferences and his violent ways “is now a true Christian, willing to turn the other cheek – willing to be crucified instead of wanting to crucify.”

    And as we watch Alex leave his treatment and the souped up version of Annie the Analyzer behind, we know the outcome.

    The evolutionist in Kubrick surfaces, as the newly pacified and denatured Alex is incapable of defending himself. The “true Christian” of Brodsky’s creation cannot survive. And ironically, that is exactly the state that the IP (Zios) has left us in after 70 years of effort invested addicting us to passive entertainment and then desensitizing us to vice, crudeness and ugliness while attacking Christian mores of sexual chastity and fidelity which held sway 50 years ago. Thus our own collective racial reconditioning has been much more complex and thoroughgoing than Alex’s relatively simple aversion therapy, but has brought us collectively to the same sad conclusion as we are now incapable of defending ourselves and incapable of reproducing..

    • Replies: @Malla
  60. Malla says:
    @Malla

    But survival is nature’s imperative and trumps all other concerns. And in the final scene Kubrick informs his audience that the conditioning can be reversed in an instant, as soon as it is in the Interior Minister’s political interest to reverse it.

    High art and classical European culture was exposed as potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. Untutored exploration of that high art and culture was highly subversive and ought to be suppressed. But if we cannot resort to outright censorship of Beethoven, then at least we can keep them ignorant of their own roots.

    This movie appeared in 1971, and shortly thereafter, the 200 or so people in Hollywood who Ben Stein informs us decide what we are to see every night suddenly decided that – “popular culture was formed in the black community.” Public school field trips to the symphony, so popular in the 1950s and 1960’s ended for most school districts. The dumbing down of education and culture began in earnest.

    After all, exposing us (Gentile Whites) to such classics of English literature as Alfred Lord Tenneyson’s Locksley Hall, or Shakespeare’s unflattering portrait of the IP in Merchant of Venice, or his unflattering portrait of miscegenation and the decline of the Roman Empire in Titus Andronicus, are dangerous. Better that we (Gentile Whites) not be exposed to such things at

    The first point is simply this – that the IP (Jews) has an aesthetic sense that is radically different from our own (Gentile Whites), and it causes them to produce entertainment for us (Gentile Whites) that misses the mark, producing a vacuum in the market place. They cannot help it.

  61. It was about free will, Trevor. Duh.

  62. @Al Ross

    I read that in Malaysia he was seeing some pretty young dance girl from those dancehalls of the time where you could hire a girl to dance and sit with you. Also I think he mentioned an even younger girl slipping into his bed at night while he was visiting some tribe, and of course he could not refuse that show of hospitality commonly extended to visitors by the headhunters of Borneo and possibly anger the chief. I read his autobiography a long time ago and can’t remember much other than it was interesting. Loved his Malay trilogy. He describes the sexual foibles of the international expat community in Borneo in “Devil of a State”.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  63. gotmituns says:
    @Alfred

    We did not know that millions of educated people were being murdered.
    ————————————————————————————
    I’ve got no problum with that. Weve’ got farr two many edumacated people runing around loose in the streats as it is.

  64. Hello All!
    The only thing I liked about this movie was Malcolm McDowall acting like a complete dill.
    I also like him acting like a complete dill along with Teresa Ann Savoy. With the latter in various states of undress.
    There’s my movie review done. All two of them.
    A.

  65. @R.G. Camara

    It made sense in the story. The old man’s home had been assaulted and wife raped because he was old, weak, and unintimidating. Hiring a giant, well-muscled, intimidating-looking man as a guard is equivalent to building your castle walls up and putting archers all around.

    Yes it would make sense to hire a guard.

    But there would be no need to dress him in a red speedo.

    The outfit is not by chance. Kubrick is telling us that they are gay.

  66. “The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.”

    How would the psychiatrists make their livelihood if we kill off the most violent sociopaths?

    • Replies: @animalogic
  67. @A. Hipster

    Robert Crumb … I’d say Crumb was/is a genius, and to say he hated America is odd … I don’t think he had any agenda, he worked like the French Surrealists, let the unconsciousness bring out what it will

    He wrote a comic about cartoon cat that only cares about getting laid.

    A true genius of Western art.

    There is even a strip where the cat rapes a horse.

    Truly thought provoking stuff.

    • Replies: @nsa
  68. What is obscene is not so much this film as what it depicts: an utterly degenerate England, replete with garish décor, spineless adults, women who sport purple hair, effete intellectuals who complain more about policemen than criminals, and cat ladies who run fat farms in mansions furnished with vulgar white ceramic penis sculptures; in short, a once-great England in full decline, as characterized by its lack of taste.

    In such a society, it is no wonder young men seek out community in the form of gangs that feature hierarchy and insular language. Their quest for vitality takes a criminal form because society provides no outlet for it. The Burgess novel develops the lingo of the gangs, which is so dense a glossary is provided to the reader.

    These young men remind me of the Alt-right, sans the violence.

    The new government is not leftwing, as Johnson claims, but rightwing: it seeks to do what works in reducing the crimewave, not to mollify criminals.

    One of the film’s themes is that high culture fails to humanize. Beethoven goes as well with Alex’s sadistic fantasies as it does with the pursuit of noble ends.

    The most unforgettable image is the look on the writer’s face as he tortures Alex with the Ninth Symphony. What Kubrick has stumbled onto here is that the writer’s face exhibits the proper expressiveness for listening to Beethoven. Powerful artistic expression elicits powerful emotional responses.

    The writer, who was leftwing and is eventually sent to prison, comes round to a natural and just desire for vengeance, for which Beethoven’s music provides the perfect score.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Dumbo
  69. This is a pretty good assessment of Clockwork Orange. I think the movie could be used as a gauge of one’s own growth. The first time I saw it I was in my late teens. It wasn’t that impressive but I sat through it and took in its lessons. I have watched it maybe 3 times since then. The last time I watched it, somewhere in my mid-thirties, I didn’t even want to finish it. I found it that distasteful. In a similar way as a movie called Vulgar that was released about 20 years ago.

    Last year’s Joker movie was much less stomach turning than either of those movies.

  70. Z-man says:

    Yeah ditto to what you said Trevor Lynch.
    I was around 15 when this movie came out and I never had a desire to see it because of its violence and homo/glitter rock make up of the protagonist/antagonist played by Malcolm McDowell.
    I’ve seen some of it over the last 50 years and still agree with the article even though I find some of the scenes now humorously entertaining.
    Now lets talk about Kubrick. He has made a number of great movies, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, etc. but where would he be if not for Jewlywood? Yeah sure he started small but with hymie $ backing $. I put it to you that if he weren’t a JOO (but also being a Jew, lol) he would have been jerking off to boy porn or otherwise in the Bronx until his death. (Wry grin)

  71. @Commentator Mike

    MIKE

    Burgess wrote the book because his pregnant wife was raped by American soldiers during a blackout in London.

    I think that is publicly known.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @Alden
  72. @Reb Kittredge

    The new government is not leftwing, as Johnson claims, but rightwing: it seeks to do what works in reducing the crimewave, not to mollify criminals.

    The justice system is right-wing but the government is left-wing as it is in denial of human nature and the effect of cultural degeneracy.

    The government turned to modern psychiatry in an attempt to fix him which is a left-wing approach. Psychology/psychiatry itself is very left-wing as it tries to reduce all behavior to an individual condition.

    The modern leftist doesn’t want to face the wake of its own moral destruction. Instead people like Alex are viewed more like broken machines that just need to be fixed by modern methods. If you are lashing out at society then you must have a condition that just needs to be identified and treated. There is no questioning at a greater level as to why all these Alexes just happened to appear during modern times. That questioning might lead to dark truths that the left doesn’t want to face.

  73. Trinity says:

    The early 1970s when this total bomb of a movie was in theaters were a pretty grim time for those who can remember it. There was chaos and crime everywhere. You had serial killings and mass murders popping up in California like the infamous Manson Murders, the Zodiac was terrorizing The Bay Area, giant 6’9″ mamma’s boy Ed Kemper was slaughtering young females, Black Muslim serial killers in the Bay Area killed at least 15 people, all of who were White I believe and wounded several others. One female was nearly decapitated with a machete. Not a nice time to put out a movie glorifying violence, rape, murder, etc. Juan Corona was killing migrant workers and burying them in peach orchards in California. There were brutal murders in other places as well, one that comes to mind is the Alday Family Murders committed by a group convicts who escaped a Maryland prison and slaughtered, raped and butchered several members of the Alday family in rural southwest Georgia. Early 1970s were not a good time to put out a movie like Clockwork Orange.

    One particular movie that focused on violence and degenerate behavior at the time was a movie based loosely on real life mass murderer, Charles Starkweather and his girlfriend/accomplice/tag-along/hostage, whatever your opinion of Carill Ann Fugate might be. The Zodiac even sent his own movie review of “Badlands” and “The Exorcist” to SFPD if I remember right. I believe he equated “The Exorcist” with a comedy and trashed the movie but thought highly of “Badlands.” Well, whoever The Zodiac was or is if the old geezer is still alive I happen to agree with that opinion on those two movies. “The Exorcist” was the blockbuster of the year for 1973 while “Badlands” was not nearly as well received. I found “Badlands” an excellent movie and “The Exorcist” did not measure up at all to all the hype, boring movie IMO.

    • Replies: @mike99588
  74. nsa says:
    @John Johnson

    JJ, Google up “crumb when the niggers take over america” for a comic strip that may change your mind. Or try “crumb when the jews take over america”. Pornographer or cultural visionary?

  75. @RJ Macready

    The stoic demeanor that men possessed in the 70s,80s, and even 90s has died out completely and with it the refined prose and technical skills. Just look at any documentary made in the past 15 years and compare them to something like the World at war. Cheesy reenactments, fast cuts and flashy get your attention will NOT be equal to the soothing voice of Laurence Olivier or the manner in which the interviews were conducted in that series.

    Never mind the 70s/80s/90s, what about the 30s? Imagine this video made now. It would have flashing 3D, idiotic presenters and forced jokes:

    • Thanks: Dave Pinsen
  76. Traddles says:
    @RJ Macready

    Good points. Regarding Kubrick, I highly recommend “Barry Lyndon.” It’s filled with beauty. That, combined with Kubrick’s chilly, detached style and attention to period detail makes it very powerful and unforgettable in many ways.

    I agree about “The World at War” compared with the shoddy quality of more recent documentaries. The former was produced by mature, experienced adults who had a real understanding of history and the perspective that it provides.

  77. I never saw the movie but is sure sounds like a Talmudic classic, straight from the dungeon of Lucifer. Hollywood and places like Hollywood produce much to reshape the minds of the unsuspecting. And these “people” have nearly all mankind believing they are God’s Chosen Ones.

  78. @Black Dog

    Actually, Kubrick was a New York born Jew with a sense of the New Yorker but more likely with the mentality of an exile from a shtetl.

  79. Dumbo says:
    @Reb Kittredge

    an utterly degenerate England, replete with garish décor, spineless adults, women who sport purple hair, effete intellectuals who complain more about policemen than criminals, and cat ladies who run fat farms in mansions furnished with vulgar white ceramic penis sculptures; in short, a once-great England in full decline, as characterized by its lack of taste.

    So, how is it different from the real, contemporary England?

    Ah yes; the population is growingly nonwhite. But other than that…

  80. Thim says:

    The short story has 21 chapters. Burgess said the 21st was extremely important and should never have been removed. But the juice companies refused to release the short story in America unless the 21st was excised.

    It appears Burgess needed the money, or was under some kind of threat, for he agreed to the removal of the 21st chapter in the American release.

    He had no control over the movie, of course. It was pure juice.

  81. JJ, Google up “crumb when the niggers take over america” for a comic strip that may change your mind. Or try “crumb when the jews take over america”.

    Oh I see this is Unz where you can be a total degenerate comic strip creator but as long as you take a couple shots at the Jews everything is OK.

    Anyways there is an interview where he talks about his Jewish wife and how none of the racial stuff was supposed to be taking seriously.

    Pornographer or cultural visionary?

    Total loser is how I would describe him. People with a normal sex life don’t take the time to draw out a comic about leg humping a large German woman.

  82. Mike Tre says:

    I never read the book, but the movie is gratuitous Jewish nihilism and shiksa rape fantasy, combined with with making it appealing to the dope head culture.

  83. Dumbo says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    “A Clockwork Orange” is enormously entertaining for guys with three-digit IQs

    This seems to assume that “guys with three-digit IQs” all have similar tastes… When it is not the case. (Now, people with low IQ yes, they do have remarkably similar tastes… Or perhaps no taste at all (just mindlessly consuming whatever is offered to them).

    Also, I’d say that taste seems to be more related to education, culture and sensibility than to mere “IQ”.

    but Burgess is almost forgotten nowadays.

    But was he really ever very popular? I think “Clockwork Orange” was his only real popular novel (a fact he disliked).

    He seems to have been one of those typical British upper class intellectuals.. In theory conservative (and Catholic)… But in practice, he impregnated a lover when his first wive was still alive, etc.

    Hs “The Wanting Seed” (which I read long ago, but remember little) seems to have been even more prophetic than ACW… Authorities promoting homosexuality to encourage low birth rates… Etc.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  84. @Rahan

    I, too disagree with Mr. Lynch. I usually greatly enjoy his reviews, but I think he missed the point here.

    Kubrick shows the society of the future as utterly depraved: the art, the architecture, the ubiquity of pornographic images. It’s a world bereft of beauty, in which people live empty lives devoid of meaning. I don’t think that was because he hated England, but that he was simply projecting current social and political trends into the future. In hindsight, his scenario was frighteningly accurate. Who can argue that we aren’t seeing the same kind of thing happening to us now?

    The Pavlovian training of Alex is another facet of that society’s depravity. Like our own regime, that of A Clockwork Orange rejects tradition, morality, ethics, and anything else besides expediency in the service of power. They boast that they have made Alex “good,” when of course, all they’ve done is take away his free will. Alex is still evil; he’s just prevented from engaging in violence. And on top of that, they’ve also ruined his only link to possible redemption: his love of classical music, which he now can’t listen to without being violently ill.

    Similarly, this violent, corrupt state has addressed the youth violence problem by making thugs policemen: problem solved! Now when they beat people up, they’re doing it in the service of the state. And the depravity and corruption of the society have also corrupted the people still trying to hold on to morality and decency: in resisting the state’s program of attempting to turn people into programmed robots, they resort to torturing Alex to prove their point.

    Alex’s autodefenestration makes the regime look bad, so they put him back to the way he was: not because it’s the moral thing to do, but to cut their losses. The slimy minister’s visit with Alex in the hospital reveals that he and Alex are much the same: they’re both only interested in their own selfish interests, so they easily come to a mutually satisfactory agreement.

    A key theme is, of course, free will. Free will is what makes virtue and love possible: without it, we are mere organisms reacting to stimuli, as progressives seem to believe. The catch, of course, is that it also makes it possible to reject those things: thus the fall of the rebel angels and the sin of Adam. The chaplain is another product of the depraved society. He has forgotten the point of free will — if he ever knew it — and confuses it with license, rejecting God and morality. In doing so, he has made himself a slave to his impulses, for true freedom tempers free will with morality, prudence, discernment, and justice.

    To sum up, a society that rejects morality and meaning in favor of utilitarianism (symbolized by the drab, horrible architecture), hedonism (the ready availability of drugs and the tasteless, obscene decoration), and situational expediency, builds itself a nightmare world, in which there is no beauty, subtlety, meaning, or decency. Its denizens are hopeless slaves to base instincts and the fads of the moment.

    Does any of that seem to resonate with our current situation?

    The end reveals that nothing has been learned by anyone, nothing has changed. They have constructed Hell on Earth. That seems to be where we are headed, too.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  85. Marckus says:

    A person indulging in certain medical tests can submit a gob of shit for analysis. The technician pokes around in this loaf for nuggets of information which he then uses to arrive at his conclusions.

    In Clockwork Orange, many technicians, are poking around in a tractor trailer load of manure looking for a pennyweight of golden literary genius. Every fleck is carefully examined but alas turns out to be a half digested piece of peanut.

    Dr. Marckus will leave the analysis to the shit rakers and microscope voyeurs poring over Trevor Lynch’s load of monster turds for some indication and confirmation of Shakespearean treasure. “To be or not to be” was the question but the answer was “NOT TO BE”.

    My rock solid conclusion, my unassailable opinion, without ever having seen the specimen, is actually quite simple. Looking for gold and diamonds in any defecation from Hollywood or the movie industry is like looking for treasure in the tapeworms, intestinal parasites and liquid gold from the arse of a dysentery sufferer.

    I shall pass up on the analysis. It is not my thing. No matter how much you shape a turd it will never be a necklace, unless of course, a person is into avant garde fashion.

  86. TGD says:

    I see a movie to be entertained. I don’t burden myself by looking for deeper meanings. “A Clockwork Orange” is definitely not my cup of tea. I saw it twice; once when it came out and again on cable. I have no desire to watch it again.

    The Kubrick movies that I like are “Spartacus” (written by Dalton Trumbo), “2001,” “Barry Lyndon” and the first part of “Full Metal Jacket.” I like the fact that Kubrick strove for authenticity in his films. The depiction of weightlessness (0 gravity) in “2001” is a triumph of special effects and this was before computer graphics. In “Barry Lyndon,” Kubrick wanted the audience to experience the scenes in authentic candlelight. To this end, he asked Zeiss Optical to make up special camera lenses that could gather in enough light for color filming.

    Martin Scorsese’s costume movie, “The Age of Innocence,” which was his follow on to Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon,” was miscast and with a lousy script, though praised to high heaven by the critics. “Barry Lyndon” was panned.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
    , @gay troll
  87. Weird review–seems prudish in some way, although yeah, some of the scenes are stylized in a way that is porn-ish. But the underlying novel is not that far from the film in general content although Burgess was of the belief that the elimination of the final short chapter of the book by the US publisher and in the film distorted what he was trying to convey.

    The reviewer seems not to have read the novel and attributes to Kubrick elements that are mostly Burgess’s. The death-by-penis-sculpture and Singin’ in the Rain rape are Kubrick’s additions, it’s true. (Wonder why MGM allowed the song to be used?)

    The demand by WW Norton that the final chapter be excised in the US addition is an interesting act of fiat. I didn’t realize publishers were that imperious: “Either we get rid of that chapter, or find another publisher.” But the criticism that it doesn’t logically follow from the 20 chapters before is not without some basis.

    In it, Alex encounters a former gang member who has gone straight and begins to imagine a future with a wife and son. It’s an abrupt change in 10 pages and Alex retains the self-pity that makes you wonder whether that could really happen.

    In the end, the novel and film are about the throwing off of the old habits and customs in Britain that had regulated social behavior–especially that of potentially violent young men–and, as the consequences become apparent, the supplanting of those long-held traditions by the power of the modern state and its mechanisms of coercion.

    In the US, we had rapidly rising crime from the 60s into the early 90s and than steep declines based on new forensic techniques, increased video surveillance, wire taps, geolocation using cell phone data, automated analysis, larger police forces, more prison capacity, etc, etc.

    So no Ludovico Technique but the expanding power of the state has certainly replaced non-state mechanisms that communities used to handle at much more local levels and in a more decentralized way. Ironic that the more the state displaces non-government social functions, the more it babbles about how important “civil society” is.

    Kubrick certainly made a career of mocking goy authority structures. The use of Elgar’s stately Pomp and Circumstance #4 in the soundtrack as Alex is booked in prison is a classic example, lampooning the decline of modern Britain. There may well be some Jew hypocrisy there. Spartacus takes on Rome, but there is no Kubrick film of, say, The B0ok of Joshua and the genocidal rampage of the Israelites through Canaan. The French Army of WW I is shredded in Paths of Glory, but not the IDF of Peace in Galilee or the fascist settlers of the West Bank.

    Still, both the novel and film were interesting if off-putting in many ways. I don’t recognize either one in this review.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @beavertales
  88. @Bizarro World Observer

    Yeah, whatever one’s criticisms of the book or the film, writing it off as porn or “obscenity” is a refusal to deal with serious subject matter.

  89. @Dumbo

    A total moron that likes rape and violence can have a great time with Clockwork Orange.

    If Kubrick wasn’t attached it would be viewed as a weird and zany British take on the gratuitous rape and violence trend in 60s/70s movies. Might as well take Benny Hill and have him do cocaine before going on a rape spree.

    Sailer is one of those guys that is smart enough to be dumb enough to take a date to it.

  90. @TGD

    Yeah, it’s interesting how in the war film, Full Metal Jacket, the war part is totally overshadowed by the non-war part.

    That’s a tribute to the the late, great R. Lee Ermey.

  91. Yeah, it’s interesting how in the war film, Full Metal Jacket, the war part is totally overshadowed by the non-war part.

    But the sniper scene is tremendous.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @Dumbo
  92. @Oscar Peterson

    Weird review–seems prudish in some way,

    It makes Ransom Stoddard seem like a wild man in comparison.

  93. F. Galton says:
    @Lochearn

    You don’t have to drink the devil’s water. But every once in a while it’s diverting to dip your feet in it.

    The movie was made at a time when the censors had thrown up their hands and left movie makers to do what they will. A Clockwork Orange was among the movies that answered the question, how much sexual violence in film is too much? This movie and some others at the time showed where the line was, and movie makers corrected accordingly.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  94. To sum up, a society that rejects morality and meaning in favor of utilitarianism (symbolized by the drab, horrible architecture), hedonism (the ready availability of drugs and the tasteless, obscene decoration), and situational expediency, builds itself a nightmare world, in which there is no beauty, subtlety, meaning, or decency. Its denizens are hopeless slaves to base instincts and the fads of the moment.

    Does any of that seem to resonate with our current situation?

    It doesn’t matter if backdrop resonates with our current situation or appears prophetic.

    The problem is that Kubrick pandering to the same moral degeneracy that he is also trying to criticize.

    Alex is a psychopath that is unleashed by the elimination of traditional morality. This new society that embraces tolerance to the point of mindlessness becomes his playground.

    Kubrick takes advantage of that same extreme tolerance by selling rape and violence. The first third of the movie depicts Alex as the protagonist even though he rapes and kills for his own pleasure. It’s acknowledged that he has access to a normal life and rejects it on the basis of it being too conforming. How many movies lure the audience into celebrating a rapist as an individualist?

    Later after the treatment fails we are supposed to identify with him as a victim of society. What about the people that he raped and murdered? Are they not victims? We are supposed to forget about that and view him as morally superior to the system that tried reprogramming him. Well this is exact same moral relativism that created the dystopia in the first place.

    The truth is that Kubrick likes the world of Alex and would prefer living there over some stodgy traditional society. Sure you might get raped or murdered by an individualist but you were probably some faceless chattering class White that lacked taste and had it coming anyways.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  95. mike99588 says:
    @Trinity

    Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson certainly found entertainment’s commercial vein of gold for these dark hours.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  96. @John Johnson

    Later after the treatment fails we are supposed to identify with him as a victim of society.

    Maybe I’ll have to watch it again. I don’t remember ever identifying with him in any way during the film. Actually, Burgess, in his 21st and final chapter, is more sympathetic to Alex than anything the film does.

    Burgess actually frames Alex’s tentative decision to leave the life of crime and violence as “growing up”. He uses those words repeatedly. On the one hand, it is grounds for an optimism that never exists in the film. But the turnaround seems quite abrupt after all that has come before, and the idea that the brutal violence of the preceding three years can, by implication, be written off as teen hijinks is a bit unsettling.

    I’d like to hear Burgess’s explanation for that.

    I can see what you’re saying about pandering. I think Kubrick is certainly not above that. I don’t think Kubrick has any desire to live in Alex’s world, BUT he also doesn’t like the world that was torn down, resulting in Alex’s world.

  97. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    Also the scene with the “me love you long time”, “me sucky sucky fo ten dollah” has become a classic, although I suppose it’s racist and White Supremacist Anti-Asian today..

  98. Geowhizz says:
    @Pheasant

    Read that Kubrick once said paraphrasing “Hitler was mostly right about The Jews.” Pretty waspish!

    • Replies: @Malla
  99. padre says:

    So much about open mind!

  100. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    R. Crumb obviously hates America… Why not? Do you love how ugly happy motoring has grotesquely transfigured our once beautiful landscape? It’s now a carscape of road-raging cunts in scowl-grill 😠 SUVs and barren parking lagoons. America has made itself into a first world shithole, as Crumb accurately depicts, as follows:

  101. Dan Hayes says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Were the American soldiers Black?

    • Replies: @Alfred
  102. I risked taking a first date to this movie on campus when in college. We had sex that night and a beautiful, kinky relationship for months thereafter. Thank you, Stanley Kubrick.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    , @Mike Tre
  103. I believe that to adequately understand the film, “A Clockwork Orange”, one would have to see it during the time it was produced.

    Being that I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, I saw the film at the time. Like the author, I found the film somewhat vulgar but one has to remember that most of the cinema in the US in the 1970s was filled with subtle and not-to-subtle symbolism about change in society. So too was “A Clockwork Orange”, where it attempted to show that the state somehow was convinced that social engineering could cure all of society’s ills. Therapy was hugely popular at the time and there were many experiments and developments in how to cure the ills that people discussed in session (ie: group therapy).

    “A Clockwork Orange” back then had an appeal to audiences as it was attempting to demonstrate the hypocrisies of the state. Whether the film was made in Britain or not, it really didn’t matter since all states are relatively the same.

    Whether one likes this film or not, “A Clockwork Orange” will always be considered a classic of its time…

  104. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:

    I have a very different reaction to Kubrick ‘s brilliant movie “ A Clockwork Orange” , though I do agree with Trevor Lynch’s simple statement that violent rapists, sadists Sociopaths should be simply executed.

    But when they are not executed, or sentenced to do hard labor in places like Siberia, all,kinds of terrible things, cults like the Bolshevik coup, cultural Marxism, Mao’s Cultural Revolution or our own MTV, Black Rap Music, Harvey Weinstein movies and his cult break out. In such times otherwise decent , intelligent people have to look for other ways, like presented in this movie or yeah, supporting a temporary strong man tough guy like Gen Pinochet, Vladimir Putin or Yale, Hitler for a limited time period , with limitations like those imposed on the early Roman Emperors.

    Just letting everyone do whatever the hell they want regarding music, fashion, sex, culture _ that s not a viable options.

    So what are Unz Reviews writers and readers going to do about the upcoming BLM/ Antifa riots, looting, murder and mayhem in the places they live? Appeal to the United Nations? Start another Zionist Neo Conservative war in Iraq, Syria, Russia – some place in Ido where the White locals resist Critical Race Theory, BLM indoctrination and homo pedophilia, mandatory Holocaust Education.

    Nope, not I.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  105. Technomad says:

    One thing that a lot of people miss about the movie is that it was influenced by the recent British moral panic about “Mods” and “Rockers.” Billy-boy’s gang look to be futuristic versions of “Rockers,” while Alex and his own type (which we see in other groups in the film) would be the equivalent of “Mods.”

    The Mods-vs-Rockers feud was largely whipped up by the British press—as I understand it, the two subcultures existed, but had had little to do with each other until the papers fanned the flames by representing a few isolated brawls as part of a mass war going on between these two menacing groups of youths.

    A Clockwork Orange was filmed in 1971, and at that time the Mods and Rockers were a very recent memory.

    • Replies: @Abdul Alhazred
  106. I don’t care a fuck about the movie. Buy the slim novel by Burgess and read it. He invents a new language, throws in a few dollops of “behaviorism” and at the end you will be rooting for Alex.
    And I liked the movie too.

  107. Alfred says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Were the American soldiers Black?

    Black soldiers were exclusively used in construction work and suchlike. I doubt if there were any in London.

    My mother told me that they were used for building aerodromes in Northern Ireland. An enterprising Irish businessman ran a coach service from Dublin so that the inhabitants of the Republic could take a look at blacks for their first time.

    During World War Two, over one million black servicemen served in segregated US Army regiments. Many of those men were briefly based in Northern Ireland.

    US Army segregation in Northern Ireland

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  108. Trinity says:
    @mike99588

    Yeah but the Eastwood and Bronson characters were cheered on by the audience because Dirty Harry and Paul Kersey were taking out the trash whereas this weird movie, “Clockwork Orange” was meant for dweebs who enjoyed weird shit, like watching punks gang raping someone from what I gather by the comments. I can’t give that many descriptions of a movie so bad that I could only watch it for 15-20 minutes while underway on a ship cruising the Caribbean. It wasn’t like I could go anywhere else while in the middle of the Caribbean, well we did have a Universal gym machine on the flight deck and I could always go to my rack and read or listen to my Walkman ( remember those things?) The only movie that they had for movie night that was worse than this garbage, “Clockwork Orange” was some movie called, “Basket Case.” Good gawd, this movie was even less watchable than “Clockwork Orange.” Who watches this shit?

  109. Kubrick liked to shock people – he studied it, not just the photographic techniques, but also the psychology of inducing maximum fear and terror in his audience. He hoped this would make his films more memorable, and it obviously did, while arguably better films, such as

    https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/la-belle-noiseuse-1991

    are almost completely forgotten now. Watched about 1/2 hour of Orange on video before turning it off. Can’t imagine why anyone would want to subject themself to that on the big screen. 2001 is a masterpiece.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  110. Elten says:

    I remember seeing Clockwork Orange together with my girl friend of those days, and we walked out of the Movie theatre in a state of shock.
    We also walked out from that hideous Marlon Brando Last Tango movie in Paris.

  111. Were Alex and his group of thugs degenerate and immoral? Well, yes, obviously, but – is that ALL they were? Were they in fact mostly CRAZY? Does the scene where the 2 rival gangs seem to enjoy beating the hell out of each other partially exonerate them? When I think of some violent criminal I think of someone who enjoys dishing out violence but not of someone who is also eager and willing to receive it. In the real world violent gangs DO attack each other, but usually not unless the attacking gang believes they have the advantage that will allow them to kill their rivals. They don’t plan to do it all over again the next night (Alex and the rival gang leader clearly had crossed paths with each other often).

    I’m interested in this movie because I feel I received the same kind of conditioning that Alex got from my liberal parents before I was old enough to even remember it. Growing up I would occasionally hear from my mom about how she felt my dad went way overboard in punishing me for some incident. And my dad would agree with that somewhat. I was used to getting punishment from my parents, physical and otherwise, but apparently this had been particularly severe punishment over the course of several months. I was never very interested in finding out what they were talking about but over time I pieced together that I had thrown a rock at some other kid. It seems I hit him right above the eye – no permanent damage but lots of blood. Also it seems that I claimed he had started throwing rocks at me first. The last time this was spoken about I suggested to my mom that it would be natural for me as a young kid to try to claim the other kid started it. I can’t remember what actually happened (not suggesting a repressed memory, I was simply too young). She told me that some other kids saw what happened and had backed up my story.

    Growing up, I was an anxious-to-please rule-follower who was always over-polite – I was definitely a “clockwork” and not an “orange.” If my parents thought that making me “virtuous” by de-clawing me would give me a happy life they were sorely mistaken. I came across as a goody two-shoes and was constantly bullied. By far the worst thing was that I hated myself for a coward because I would never fight back.

    Since then some things have happened such that I no longer consider myself a coward. But back to the movie. Even if Alex had no redeeming characteristics (not sure I agree with that), if his immorality had been the ONLY problem, then the “virtuous” version of Alex should been on-track to a smooth and happy life, even if his “virtue” was phony and only caused by the Ludovico technique. Clearly the movie shows that Alex definitely was NOT the only problem.

  112. BorisMay says:

    This review is out of context and by someone who has never had any practical experience of London and its hypocritical elites.

    The reviewer should have watched ‘Morgan a Case for Treatment’ followed by ‘If’ to understand where Clockwork Orange was coming from. A look at Pink Floyd’s ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ would have helped too.

    This review examines the superficialities without considering the undercurrents that both the book and the film are actually highlighting.

    Without having lived through those times and having suffered the utter hypocrisy of the English at large, and the horrors ordinary people have had to endure in London in particular, and England in general, you can not understand what the film is actually getting at (and the joy of watching, if only symbolically, the bastards getting their just deserts).

    The reviewer starts from a point of ignorance and ends on a point of ignorance. Not only did he fail to understand it the first time, but failed again through his ineptness this time. It is pointless to approach a review in this vein, especially as he avoids context as a point of obfuscation.

  113. scamDemic says:

    Hello Friends,

    We are all witnessing a real 21 century Clockwork Orange

    In case some of you are interested, this weeks video exposes the monetary alliance between the NIH, World Bank, Wuhan Institute of Virology, the WHO, Gavi, UNICEF, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Don’t miss it!

  114. Turk 152 says:

    Clockwork Orange is complete, unbelievable nonsense. Our current leaders would not have cured Alex, they would have appointed him an Ambassadorship to Syria or made him Vice President, perhaps even given him a shot at Prime Minister or President one day.

    • Agree: Marckus
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  115. @F. Galton

    The movie was made at a time when the censors had thrown up their hands and left movie makers to do what they will. A Clockwork Orange was among the movies that answered the question, how much sexual violence in film is too much? This movie and some others at the time showed where the line was, and movie makers corrected accordingly.

    In a way, ACO has to be seen in that context, at least from a sociological angle. But Kubrick, like Peckinpah, took it up as an artistic challenge, successful or not. This also goes for works like LAST TANGO IN PARIS and MIDNIGHT COWBOY.
    The level of violence in FULL METAL JACKET and sex in EYES WIDE SHUT show that Kubrick felt he nothing to ‘correct’. One thing for sure, the rise of porn made sexuality-for-titillation-sake pointless in cinema. In the end, the shock effect just wore out, and it wasn’t easy to sell something on sex-and-gore alone. By the time CALIGULA came out, no one cared.

    In the end, the problem was less with works like ACO than with stuff TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or even DAWN OF THE DEAD and their sequels where the violence just became a gore-fest.

    • Replies: @Magylson
  116. @Turk 152

    Clockwork Orange is complete, unbelievable nonsense. Our current leaders would not have cured Alex, they would have appointed him an Ambassadorship to Syria or made him Vice President, perhaps even given him a shot at Prime Minister or President one day.

    Yes, but on condition that the ‘Alexes’ play the game. Deep State is full of sociopaths but they spent their years in elite schools, not stealing cars and invading homes. Go to school, get your degree, and then you can invade entire nations and kill many more people.

    • Replies: @Turk 152
  117. @gar manar nar

    Kubrick liked to shock people – he studied it, not just the photographic techniques, but also the psychology of inducing maximum fear and terror in his audience.

    Shocking is easy, the bag of tricks of any horror maker.

    Kubrick went for something more. He sought to disorient us. Shock wears off but disorientation lingers. It’s like Kafka keeps unnerving you whereas, for all its shocks, you walk away laughing from something like HALLOWEEN.

    • Replies: @gar manar nar
  118. Alfa158 says:

    That was a disturbing movie but I first saw it when it was released and thought Kubrick was warning us where Western society was going, so I understood the brutality he depicted. There was speculation that the film was set in the same time and universe as 2001 and depicted what Earth was like in contrast to the efficient sterility of the space frontier.
    I’m surprised Lynch didn’t mention the brilliantly curated soundtrack that, as in 2001, contributed so much to the impact of the film. The opening scene perfectly sets us up when the camera dollies in on the droogs getting pumped up on psychedelic laced milk for a night of the old ultra-violence while the soundtrack plays a synthesized version of Purcell’s dirge Music for the Funeral of Queen Mary.
    The soundtrack was in fact the best thing about this film.The composer, Walter Carlos, was a very successful pioneer of synthesized music, but pulled a Wachovsky Brothers and his output gradually dried up after deciding he was really Wendy Carlos and changing sex.

  119. Did Trevor review the Jack Nicholson film “Five Easy Pieces”?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  120. gay troll says:
    @TGD

    To this end, he asked Zeiss Optical to make up special camera lenses that could gather in enough light for color filming.

    Incidentally, the super fast Zeiss lenses used in Barry Lyndon were originally designed for NASA’s Apollo program.

  121. See also the Australian movie titled ‘Dead-End Drive-In’ produced around the mid 1980’s. It stars Ned Manning and Natalie McCurry as displaced youths who end-up being trapped in a drive in theatre which has been transformed into a concentration camp where the youths (punk rockers, sociopaths, etc.) living in their cars who are are held indefinitely, and have no hope due to societal breakdown, massive unemployment, and Mad Max-styled ‘Car Boys’ who wreak havoc.

    It becomes a microcosm of various elements of anti-social behaviours brought on by world disasters, bad public policies, and total disregard for humanity’s welfare.

    That has relevance for today as well, but is never seen in DVD catalogs, or given viewing rights to the various networks.

    Everyone who can interpret ‘A Clockwork Orange’ will have no problem in seeing how ‘Dead-End Drive-End’ relates to society in real time.

    You can still view this via You Tube, but you may need a VPN as it seems to be blocked in several countries due to the content of futuristic predictions. Pay particular attention to the intro statement(s) as the movie begins.

    The only thing missing from the movie content is a plague or ‘plandemic’ that we are now experiencing in real life.

    See also online the Deagel.com population reduction prediction for major Western Nations. The CIA, Rand Corporation, and major global corporations and universities use Deagel forecasting in planning their futures and setting policies based on the same.

    And…it ain’t lookin’ good for the ‘good ol’ U.S. of A!!!

    See also ‘Snordster”s video titled ‘The Roach Motel at the End of the Universe’, and ‘The Black Swan is On the Wing’, along with ‘Shooter’, and ‘Monster’!

  122. Turk 152 says:
    @Priss Factor

    I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding’s Commercial College.

    • Replies: @plannumber9
  123. Well worth reading on this subject, by Theodore Dalrymple.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/prophetic-and-violent-masterpiece-12926.html

    You’re welcome.

    • Thanks: dfordoom
  124. Magylson says:
    @Priss Factor

    Dawn of the dead was an excellent social commentary on the consumer society. As far as aoc is concerned it was before my time. Kubrick withdrew it so it was a banned film in the UK so therefore a film you had to see. Just to say you had seen it. Don’t know about Texas chainsaw massacre. Another UK banned film but a bit more than just a gorefest.

  125. Unfortunately, I mostly- with some caveats- disagree re worth of it all.

    In this book, Burgess was primarily a satirist, and not a novelist stricto sensu. A comparison with Swift is apposite, because Swift too was not a novelist, and even his best work is a magnificent prose describing 3rd rate controversies of human condition; “characters” are cartoons & moral dilemmas are crude, heavily stylized & without tackling deeper issues of human freedom, the unconscious, plasticity & authenticity of human life.

    Burgess is all about verbal fireworks. Just compare CO with enormously more complex & serious philosophical novels of Mann or Musil, and Burgess is seen for what he is- a dwarf.

    Kubrick’s movie was even worse. Acting, costumes, music, cinematography,…. are so dated that even supposedly horrifying scenes look over-the -top & unbelievable. The movie is a complete failure.

    Generally, Kubrick, while great, is overrated, and there are tons of better directors from France, Poland, Japan or Italy.

    • Agree: gar manar nar
  126. @Technomad

    …and thus in 1971 the establishment provided the means of incubatng deep in young impressionable minds that which became the punk rock phase of the entropy express…who then brought in Thatcher then Blair…well the rest was history…

  127. HT says:

    Back when we still had a civilization that could tell the difference between fiction and the real world. Now we have a culture dominated by black savages who seek to live out the disgusting filth they call music.

  128. @Buzz Mohawk

    Yessssss! Thank YOU, Buzz Mohawk!

  129. @Magylson

    Kubrick withdrew which film from the UK?

  130. although A Clockwork Orange is often hailed as a classic, I thought it was dumb, distasteful, and highly overrated

    Dumb, no. Distasteful, yes, but how could it be tasteful given the content. Highly rated by some but denounced by just as many, and the film continues to have detractors who, while acknowledging Kubrick’s mastery, take exception to this treatment. It was as underrated as overrated.

    They… use a confidence trick (“There’s been a terrible accident. Can I come in and use your phone?”) to invade a couple’s home, whereupon they beat the man, rape his wife, and trash the place. The whole sequence is deeply distasteful. Violent sociopaths like Alex and his friends should simply be killed.

    But how could it be tasteful, especially when most of the film is from Alex’s subjectivity? Alex is a crazy guy, and the whole film is seen through his lizard eyes. He isn’t a man of taste(by conventional standards) though he thinks rather highly of himself as an aesthete who reveres the genius of Beethoven. As he sees it, he’s cut above the rest. His fellow hooligans or droogs are just hangers-on. He is the natural leader, and they are his sidekicks. He leads, they follow. Also, he sees himself as an artist of mayhem. There is flamboyance in his aggression, a logic to the madness. It’s as if his crime spree is a performance art, an ultra-violent version of the pantomime troubadour in Antonioni’s BLOW-UP. As far as Alex is concerned, he is a natural aristocrat, a pop-Nietzschean star of the street who makes up his own rules. No wonder Kubrick thought of casting Mick Jagger in the role. Sympathy for the Devil.
    That Alex should be locked up or executed reads like a non-sequitur. It’s social commentary unrelated to the film and its purpose. I don’t know of Kubrick’s stance on justice and capital punishment, but the film is not about what kind of punishment people like Alex deserve. I highly doubt Kubrick was cheering on the violence or thought people like Alex should merely be slapped on the wrist. Rather, he features an act of horrific violence from both objective and subjective viewpoints, which makes the scene all the more disturbing. On the one hand, Kubrick just watches and takes note in ‘cinema verite’ style; it’s like reportage of rape done by the Maysles Brothers. Yet, it’s also like the pig-hunt in LORD OF THE FLIES. William Golding made the reader share in the ecstasy(with sexual overtones) in the pursuit and kill. It’s something more than search for food. It’s the thrill of violence and unfettered freedom.

    [MORE]

    A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in presenting the violence raw, oscillating between cold-eyed detachment and wild-eyed exuberance, Kubrick was being daring(with unprecedented depiction of violence) and daring us to find our own equilibrium. Traditionally, violence by bad people was presented with strong moral overtones, like when Liberty Valance robs and assaults people. It’s as if even the bad guys knew the moral equation. In being mean and nasty, they were proving a point, paving the way for good guys to put things to right. That element made violence in older movies less disturbing and more comforting. Plenty of villains act nastily in Cecil B. DeMille movies, but we know it’s bad-guys-acting-bad and furthermore our sympathy is directed toward the victims(who are often featured as noble or saintly). Or in Ida Lupino’s THE HITCHHIKER, we know the villain is a real scumbag, and we never stop worrying about the hostages. Hitchcock’s PSYCHO comes close to making us identify with Norman Bates, but the moral conundrum is resolved by featuring him as a hopelessly sick person(in the clinical sense). In contrast, ACO is the-world-according-to-a-sociopath and hardly wavers from that position. Also, unlike BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH that halfway try to ennoble or humanize the characters — Robin Hoods in hard times or outlaws who fight for honor — , there is nothing redemptive about Alex who exults in nihilism in the final scene. One could argue Kubrick chose not to do the moral or emotional homework for us. Another director might have padded or slanted the film to make it clearer that Alex is a bad guy, a brutalizer and even a killer of innocents. (A good example is the TV movie HITLER: THE RISE OF EVIL that leaves no stone unturned that Hitler was a bad, bad, very, very bad-bad guy lest anyone get the wrong idea. Though Hitler is almost always on screen, he is made repellent at every turn. DENIAL, the movie about David Irving, is also slanted to leave no doubt that he’s Mr. Miserable, evil incarnate. In contrast, Kubrick chose to give the devil his due in ACO and leave it up to us to judge or not. Alex plays it he’s the son of satan but too wily even for his other-father who would prefer someone like Damien in the OMEN movies.) Some might argue that Kubrick went too far and overly indulged Alex, i.e. he isn’t merely presented as a sociopath but like a rock star, a rebel with cause-celebre. But then, the film is essentially seen through Alex’s eyes and narrated by him. It is not an objective presentation, like with Hitler and cohorts in DOWNFALL. It makes for an interesting contrast with the next film BARRY LYNDON with its third-person narrator. While it remains with Barry from beginning to end, it’s never quite his story. He is the observed than the observer. In contrast, Burgess wrote the book as a tall-tale of a demented youth, and it has the advantage of the ‘unreliable narrator’. As with CANDIDE, we can never tell if the story is true in its entirety. In contrast, it’s more difficult to suggest unreliability in movies that show everything in detail.

    In some ways, the rape scene in ACO is even harder to take than the one in Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS. While both are disturbing, the violation in the latter is presented gravely where senses and emotions are pushed to the limit. Also, the rapist in STRAW DOGS has strong feelings for the woman, and even as she resists, a part of her surrenders to the alpha of the pack. In contrast, the rape in ACO is just an extension of the joy-ride with the stolen car. It has no emotional link and throws us off-balance. How are we to react to the scene? One possibility is laughing along in the manner of Animal House, but then, we would have to be as demented as Alex. But even if one chooses outrage, the scene lurches back and forth between indifference to exaltation and denies us a safe-seat of moral judgement. And when Alex breaks into “Singin’ in the Rain”, it’s all the more bewildering, at least for the moralist. (HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER takes it even further in violence and mayhem, but its sheer grimness has a consistency and may be less exasperating than ACO is to some. As for MAN BITES DOG, that’s just pointless.)
    The rape scene is deeply troubling and either serves as a challenge or a monkey wrench as to how we’re supposed to feel through the rest of the movie. If Alex were a grim and humorless figure like the monster in HENRY THE PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER(which I detest as much as Nani Moretti does), it wouldn’t matter so much. At the very least, it’s impossible to see Henry as anything but a sicko from beginning to end. But there are moments in ACO when Alex is funny charming, and inspired(and even a bit endearing, but then, who says bad people can’t have winning qualities?) He isn’t merely funny like Joe Pesci’s characters in GOODFELLAS and CASINO. There, even when you laugh at some of his antics, you know he’s a lowlife killer; all said and done, he’s nothing more than a goomba. But Alex isn’t just a sociopath but a rare breed(whose fiendish grin makes us forget what a monster he is), and there’s the risk of us overlooking his true nature(or even being seduced by it). There is something of the Marquis De Sade about him. Especially in the Rock Era when so many music stars’ bad behavior were overlooked or even hyped for their cool factor, not to mention the effect of 007 movies and Spaghetti Westerns, it’s easy to see why ACO became part of the Zeitgeist.
    In a way, ACO is like a distillation of the driving forces behind the 60s. Boomer youths portrayed themselves as idealistic and ‘committed’, but events like May 68 owed more to youth narcissism/nihilism than any real understanding of the world or justice; unlike earlier leftisms, they were products of too-much-prosperity than too-much-poverty, more about searching for meaning than material needs, and one thing for sure, Alex’s dementia can’t be blamed on ‘poverty’, which was the pat formula for ideologues, especially in relation to bad black behavior. And yet, the search for meaning soon turned into pursuit of thrills in an era when youths were enticed with dreams of sex, music, drugs, and unfettered expressions in arts/entertainment. It’s like the ending of MEIN BAADER-MEINHOF KOMPLEX where the original radicals soon discover that the movement attracts those who are simply prone to destruction; for them, ideology is a moral cover, as with the would-be murderers in ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD who rationalize their murder plan with ‘social justice’ theories of getting even with the pigs in Hollywood.
    In a way, ACO does to youth culture what DR. STRANGELOVE did to the Military-Industrial Complex. Just like the generals and wargamers of the Cold War satire are driven as much by sex and territoriality as by principles and patriotism, ACO implies that the driving spirit of youth is less idealism than ultra-narcissism. Indeed, a world where Rock Stars and the like hog the limelight of ‘morality’ really makes us wonder.

    Alex is high-handed and cruel to his buddies as well, using treachery and violence to assert dominance over them. This merely breeds resentment.

    But we can understand why. Alex is clearly superior to them in will and wit. He’s got bigger brains and balls. He is the natural leader among them. In any rock band, some have more star power than others. Mick Jagger was the front-man for the Stones. John Lennon was the dominant force in the Beatles, even if Paul McCartney did more of the heavy-lifting. Alex is too good for his droogs, and they know it. They resent him but also envy him. They stick by him because they get to do things they wouldn’t on their own. But he pushes too far, and they betray him, but this happens in rock bands as well. Some have speculated that Alexander the Great was a victim of a conspiracy by his own men. In a way, Alex just can’t help himself. He’s a diva, he hogs the attention, and he must be boss.

    The happy ending is that Alex returns to being a violent sociopath, but this time he will enjoy the patronage and protection of the state. Thus the tale veers from pat moralism to pure cynicism in the end.

    But the film never dabbled in pat moralism. If anything, Kubrick upset a lot of people precisely because of the near-total lack of any kind of moralism. Indeed, Alex’s troubles out-of-prison are not treated as ‘lessons’ as Trevor Lynch would indicate: Let that be a lesson to you.
    It’s less a lesson and more a joke on him. Alex develops a strange relationship with the audience. Because of his zany devil-may-care charisma, the audience is partially with him for the ride, a vicarious participation in thug-life. But because some of his acts are unspeakable, the audience also feels a bit sick. It’s almost as if Kubrick was pulling a Ludovico Technique on us but in reverse. If Alex-the-sociopath is made to feel sick about mayhem, the audience(presumable made up of mostly decent people) is made to feel almost giddy about the violence. (Over the years, the problem has been desensitization, especially as even young ones now grow up watching slasher movies and playing violent gory video-games. Today, a normal person is probably inundated with tons of violent images that only used to haunt psychopaths in the past. What is the long-term psycho-social consequence of this? A nation of normal people with heads filled with manifestations of abnormal psychology?) There’s a kind of love/hate feeling for Alex on part of the (normal) audience. In a way, Kubrick’s lack of judgement is not without moral value, at least in that he allows the viewers the free will to find and choose their own responses. In contrast, what is so offensive about PULP FICTION is Tarantino dishes out all the demented ugliness for laughs but then, at the end, pretends to wrap it up with a lesson in gangster ethics, which is totally unconvincing.

    Kubrick was fascinated with the fallibility of the perfect plan or system(most notably with the Hal computer). The ruling regime and Alex arrive at an understanding of the Perfect Solution that would satisfy both parties(and the third party, the public, as well). Due to the Ludovico treatment, Alex would be set free, which is good for him. He would no longer commit crime, which would be good for the public, and it would mean good press for the government, a boost for the ruling elites. But, as so often in Kubrick films, the perfect system falls apart. Alex is free but becomes the hunted, public support falters, and the regime must backtrack. At the highest levels, it’s really a matter of power, who rules what, than a matter of justice. Those who use Alex, even driving him to attempted suicide, are capable of anything to embarrass the ruling regime so that THEY can take power. And the regime changes its tune on Alex and restores him to his original self not out of any real concern for him or ethical principles but merely to minimize the damage to remain in power. To gain or hold onto power, both sides will do anything. Indeed, something is a bit suspect about the Ludovico Technique. If its purpose is to prevent criminal acts, why show images of Hitler and the Third Reich? What does that have to do with street crime? It could be there’s more than a handful of Jews among those who procured the treatment, and the conditioning is as ideological as medical. But then, we see this with the Covid-hysteria. It was politicized and weaponized. It was sold as a medical issue but was really driven by politics of power among the contending elites. Granted, the US is less a two-party system than a two-puppet system with both puppet-parties having their strings pulled by the Jews. Still, even among puppets, there is the wish to be the top puppet. It’s like school. No matter who is class president, he or she has to take orders from adults, but there’s still prestige in the label.

    Had the ending been truly cynical, it would have been less disturbing. After all, DR. STRANGELOVE ends on a cynical note, and it was universally praised. The problem is the triumphalism, a kind of thug-version of the Star Child at the end of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Alex, the creature of hell, has entered the heaven of ecstasy with the backing of the powers-that-be. How did Kubrick really feel about this?

    Apparently, the book’s final chapter was “redemptive,” but this was omitted as being contrived—as if that weren’t true of the whole story.

    It was excised from the American printing, long before the making of the film. Kubrick went with the American edition. I’m of two minds about the ending of the original novel. It seems plausible given that people do change with age. But it also seems like an afterthought, even irrelevant as the novel is really a satire, more about society than about any particular individual. Alex is an embodiment of a trend, a cultural ‘icon’, than a realistic individual. Still, it works better in the novel because Alex is younger. In the film, Alex is all grown-up, a young adult than someone on the verge of adulthood. So, it’d be a harder sell to present an Alex growing out of his youthful delinquency. And Alex of the film is far nastier than his counterpart in the novel.
    In contrast, we can believe in Barry Lyndon’s transformation when he loses his son and everything else. He was created as a genuine character than constructed as a social symbol.

    The Ludovico technique is based on the observation that normal people have a distaste for violence and cruelty directed at the innocent. Then it simply ignores the fact that normal people don’t necessarily have a distaste for violence, even cruelty, directed at bad people. It also reverses cause and effect, reasoning that since normal people feel distaste at violence, if they can create a mechanical association between violence and sickness, that will somehow make Alex a morally normal person, curing him of his violent sociopathy.

    This isn’t true. The people behind the Ludovico Treatment don’t overlook the fact that normal people have a taste for violence, even cruelty, directed at the likes of Alex. At the presentation, a male performer humiliates and beats up Alex to the delight of ‘normal people’. The audience loves the fact that Alex is getting his comeuppance. They look forward to the prospect that people like Alex, when righteously humiliated by ‘good normal’ people, won’t be able to fight back. Try as he might, Alex is defenseless at the abuse directed at him. He wants to strike back but can’t. And the crowd cheers. If anything, this becomes the undoing of the Ludovico Treatment. ‘Good normal’ people take advantage of Alex’s defenselessness and drive him to the edge, indeed to the point where he becomes the victim.

    Also, the Ludovico Treatment was never aimed at turning Alex into a morally normal person. It’s made clear that the powers-that-be don’t care what Alex thinks or feels AS LONG AS he is physically incapable of committing crime again. So, Alex can be as evil as he wants. What the treatment promises is that, no matter how rotten Alex may be on the inside, he will be harmless as a child on the outside. That’s it. It’s not a moral treatment but a behavioral one. In other words, it’s not meant as a moral or ‘spiritual’ cure, which is precisely the theological argument presented in the film. The powers-that-be argue that, regardless of what Alex feels inside, he is harmless AS LONG AS he doesn’t commit crime, which is the reverse of Christian teachings that say the SIN is essentially a matter of the heart.

    Also, this has to be seen in context. There was a time when B.F. Skinner(author of WALDEN II) was a major influence in the West. He disregarded psychology & free will and focused on behavior and conditioning. Skinner’s disciples rejected the notion of ‘personality’ & ‘individuality’ and believed that people are just summations of their conditioning.

    Of course, this whole theory completely ignores the element of empathy. Normal people feel disgust with violence and cruelty because they can empathize with the victims. Sociopaths lack empathy, and the Ludovico technique does not change that.

    Actually, a more disturbing point would be that seemingly normal people often empathize with violent victors over the victims. Consider the Southerners who cheered for Jesse James and the Younger Gang. Outlaws were often romanticized in American lore. 80% of blacks cheered for O.J. Simpson. And most Americans cheer for powerful Zionists and feel zero sympathy for Palestinians. (And ironically, moral outrage turns off moral considerations for whom we come to hate. Jews are so morally outraged over ‘antisemitism’ that they are blind to the suffering of goyim, especially those suspected of anti-Jew hatred. But then, Germans under Hitler were so angry with Jews who acted atrociously during the Weimar Period that many of them didn’t care what was done to the Jews. And given what Jews have done to the white race in the past fifty years, I doubt if many Alt-Right types would much care if there was another Holocaust.) And even normal people enjoy watching romanticized portraits of criminals. Gangster movies were sensations from the beginnings. Lots of people loved BONNIE & CLYDE. The film I watched the most times is THE WILD BUNCH. I loathe crooks and criminals, but I love that film and feel for the characters. Oliver Stone is an anti-imperialist radical but swoons over Alexander the Great and his imperialist exploits; apparently, the man who feels sad over all those dead Vietnamese rationalizes the wanton destructiveness of Alexander whose empire-building turned entire worlds upside down.
    ACO itself demonstrates the problem of ‘normal morality’. Why did so many Normal People praise this film? Why did they find themselves laughing along and cheering for Alex the killer? It’s almost as if charisma or the Cool Factor has a life of its own. Alex has devilish charm. Despite his vileness, he has a winning quality. Morality takes backseat to mythology, and Alex possesses the stuff of myth-making. Consider Muhammad Ali. Boxing had many tough mean bastards, and Ali could be as nasty and brutal as the rest of them. But most boxers lacked his showmanship, his knack before the audience. So, he got away with stuff that most boxers would never have. In the strictest sense, Alex is a lowlife street punk, but he has a kind of power, the power to charm and disarm, like the friend in A SEPARATE PEACE, who can talk and smile himself out of any situation.

    Of course utter stupidity is no objection to most progressive social uplift schemes, so it doesn’t exactly make such a “cure” for crime implausible.

    While the treatment could be deemed ‘leftist’, it could just as easily appeal to anti-crime rightists. If something like Ludovico Treatment could be administered to crazy Negroes, many rightists would be onboard. Who cares about Negro souls or free will? Wouldn’t it be better if black thugs were psychologically stripped of their Jafric-Jiver tendencies?

    Burgess’s “deep” objection to the Ludovico technique is equally crude and dumb, but in a different way. The prison chaplain argues that the Ludovico technique is evil because it takes away Alex’s freedom, which takes away his humanity…
    But if this is a dehumanizing assault on freedom, what are we to make of our own disgust with Alex’s behavior? Is that also a dehumanizing form of unfreedom? Presumably so. Does this mean that when Alex becomes a violent sociopath again his humanity has been restored? Presumably so.

    But that’s gumbic logic. Actually, Burgess objection is philosophically and morally sound.
    First, free will isn’t the same as freedom. Burgess and the prison chaplain are not arguing for freeing Alex. They believe a man like that should be locked up, maybe forever. Because they used their free will to commit heinous acts, they must pay for their crimes and, if possible, seek redemption. Free will means that each of us is an individual who is responsible for one’s decisions and their consequences.
    Without the Ludovico Treatment, Alex would remain in prison and would have to pay for what he’d done. Still, he would have his soul, evil or not, and of course, soul can be evil. He would have his free will, and that would make him human. Now, ‘human’ isn’t the same as ‘humane’. Being human means having the freedom to choose between good and evil. According to most religions, being human is a curse, a state of fallenness, a sinfulness. Man is of flesh, and in this man is like an ape or animals who also live by flesh and instinct. He has animal drives despite culture and civilization. Still, unlike animals that are trapped in their world of instinct, mankind has consciousness, the means to gain higher understanding, though it may take more time for some. This is possible even for sociopaths. That is the basis for human dignity. Sure, killers will be killers, and sociopaths will be sociopaths. Dogs and cats can be full of love and affection, but they cannot understand right and wrong. But moral understanding is possible even for a sociopath. It’s like what the priest says to Frank(Deniro) in THE IRISHMAN. One can be sorry even if one doesn’t feel sorry. Unlikely but within the realm of possibility.

    So, Burgess wasn’t arguing for freedom for people like Alex. But even they shouldn’t be denied free will, the individual choice between good and evil. As the prison chaplain says, the New Alex can’t really be good or reformed because true redemption requires a change of heart. But as the authorities see it, such are archaic sentiments or obsolete ideas. Science can focus on behavior, and what does it matter if Alex is rotten inside as long as he doesn’t cause harm on the outside. Of course, the victims may argue it’s unfair that someone like Alex is allowed to walk freely(even if they won’t cause harm) because they haven’t paid their debt to society. After all, if I commit murder but is given a chance to walk free if I undergo a treatment where I can’t murder again, I might take the offer; and the family of the victim would be very upset that I didn’t serve my full sentence and is a free person. Still, a free person without free will. Free on the outside, but imprisoned on the inside.

    As to the restoration of Alex’s ‘humanity’ at the end, we need to be careful with words. It’s not a matter of humanity but of human-ness. ‘Humanity’ connotes humane-ness, where human-ness encompasses the totality of what makes us human, from good to evil. So, Alex-as-sociopath is still inhumane and a monster, but he’s human in the sense that he can choose good or evil out of his own free will in contest with his genetic nature. Think of the sociopathic character played by James Woods in THE ONION FIELD. In terms of film-making prowess, it is maybe 1/10th or 1/100th that of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but it’s a penetrating study of a sociopathic mind. In some ways, the killer in that film will never change. At the fundamental level, he is not like us. Still, in certain respects, he does change and grow as a person. Age and experience do affect him. He mellows and grows more reflective, though not sufficiently for social norms.

    Since Alex the sociopath can contemplate violence without any feelings of disgust, whereas normal people cannot, does this mean that Alex is both more free and more human than normally constituted people? If so, this is a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum.

    Again, you’re confusing ‘human’ with ‘humane’. Human-ness encompasses everything from dark evil to shining nobility. Also, the moral theme of the novel is about free will, which mustn’t be confused with freedom. Free will simply means one’s conscious moral-personal-existential choice between good and evil. Burgess wasn’t arguing for granting freedom to sociopaths. He was merely acknowledging their free will. If they choose to do evil, make them pay the price. Lock them up and throw away the key. And if there’s any chance of them reforming, it must come from their hearts. True goodness must be a conscious choice, the product of reflection.

    Of course, Kubrick used Burgess’ novel to explore his own ideas. ACO is like a debased pop-version of the Napoleon story. Unlike Napoleon who had revolution, national glory, war, and liberation as the canvas for his megalomania, Alex has only a future world of soulless modernity defined by pop-consumer culture. He lives in a ‘world of shit’, a post-enlightenment world that Andy Warhol might have designed. As horrible as things were in Napoleon’s times, there was faith in the future, that somehow things will get better. It was proto-modern, whereas the world of ACO is post-modern, very much the world we find ourselves today.
    And yet, as trashy as Alex is, he has one thing in common with men like Napoleon. His sense of freedom is limitless. He feels unrestrained as a free spirit who follows his bliss, however tawdry it may be. Nothing stands in his way. Even in prison, as rotten as he is, there’s a perverse kind of integrity in remaining true to his viciousness, as if he is the master, the king, the lord of all the world.

    Alex wastes his energies in destructive ways, but he has something in common with great leaders and great artists. Alex doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Artists and leaders also score high on sociopathy. Richard Wagner, for example, used and abused everyone and felt zero remorse because, so convinced of his own greatness, he felt others existed merely to serve his genius. And great leaders believe it’s worth expending countless lives for greater vision, national glory, and/or higher cause. But buried beneath all those flowery concepts, how much does it have to do with egomania, narcissism, vainglory, and sense of destiny? What sets Alex apart from artists and leaders with sociopathic tendencies is he lacks any higher vision or cause… though, unlike most hooligans, he has the greatest appreciation for Beethoven. His mayhem is an orchestration of Beethoven’s music. In a way, it’s a perverse act of sacrilege, but in some sick twisted way, he has a point. While Beethoven’s music is lofty and inspired, it is the sublimated product of raw passions. It is ape-ness willed into angel-ness.

    In some ways, Alex is worse due to a total lack of any concern beyond his ego, and yet, this is refreshing because his primal energies aren’t wrapped in high-minded concepts. He has no pretenses of saving the world, the oft-used excuse of closet-sociopath crusaders who are really driven by megalomania and power-lust.
    In a way, it would be more honest if all those creeps in the Deep State exposed their Alex-side than pretend to care for stuff like ‘human rights’ and ‘muh democracy’. They are really gangsters and thugs. People in the war department love war for war’s-sake. The world is one big football game, and they want action. They invoke all sorts of principles to drop more bombs and kill more people, and all without remorse. Against such sham morality, there is refreshing quality about Alex’s honest immorality. It’s like Charlie(Harvey Keitel) in MEAN STREETS secretly admires and envies Johnny Boy who, though utterly demented, is true to himself and without pretension.

    But to the Ludovico technique, virtue is indistinguishable from Pavlovian conditioning, and moral sentiments are indistinguishable from a sour stomach.

    No, the Ludovico treatment doesn’t take virtue into account at all. It is based on science or scientism. It believes concepts such as ‘virtue’ and ‘free will’ to be outdated, much like most scholars today don’t take ideas like ‘natural law’ seriously. It seeks to bypass ‘sentimental’ notions such as ‘virtue’ and ‘morality’ and get right down to the business of behavior and conditioning.
    Genuine virtue requires individuality and free will, but the scientists in ACO don’t believe in either, or they believe such notions aren’t useful enough to formulate a plan. They would have to trust the people to make the right decision out of their own free will and only deal with the bad ones who end up in prison. They can be reactive but not proactive. But why clean up after the storm if you can prevent the storm itself?

    In a way, it’s the problem of modernity. More freedom for individuals means more possibility for bad behavior. Even if not outright criminal, modern freedoms have led to people making all sorts of stupid decisions with over-eating, drugs, sex, and other indulgences, all of which have degrading consequences for society. Can we rely on virtue to inspire people to clean up their acts? Moralists say yes, but most social thinkers say no. In a way, they are right. People were less self-indulgent in the past not so much out of virtue but due to repression and violence. Or, people only seemed to act more virtuous out of fear of the whip or shunning(especially at a time when people couldn’t escape into their own TV-worlds). People whose morality or virtue is based on fear or approval aren’t truly virtuous.
    A truly virtuous person chooses the righteous and good even when he has all the freedom and opportunity to indulge in the bad. For most of history, most people never had such an opportunity. They lived in a harsh world where social punishment could be swift or social rejection agonizing. But then came the modern world of tolerance and plenty with more than enough to go around. More people had something like real freedom and real choice. But when faced with the choice, they often went with vice over virtue. Virtue requires too much self-restraint, which stands in the way of ‘liberation’. Also, capitalism depends on people choosing vice that leads to more greed, vanity, and materialism that fuel the economy. And, so-called ‘liberals’ disdain the notion of virtue as repressive and ‘anal’. Furthermore, many believe that ‘virtue’ is often invoked by the powerful as a means of social control when, in fact, they themselves lack virtue and maintain power & privilege by hook and by crook.
    So, if virtue-as-foundation-of-social-order has been an illusion, what way is there to maintain social control in a liberated world? More rules and regulations and more reliance on technology in an ever-increasing surveillance state. As miserable as this way is, a plea for virtue won’t work, and indeed, it never worked. In the past, people didn’t so much choose virtue as it was chosen for them, like many marriages were arranged. But because people didn’t want to admit they were coerced, they chose to believe that the decision was their own in favor of virtue. Minus the return of those old harsh social controls, the ideal of virtue alone won’t work because too many people will choose vice over virtue if given the freedom.

    From the chaplain’s point of view, the freedom of the mind is so separate from the body, habit, and feeling that a sociopath’s lack of virtue or moral sentiment actually make him freer and thus more human than morally healthy people.

    ??? You’re just putting words into his mouth. He meant no such thing. He is saying true goodness requires a change of heart based on free will, something God bestowed unto each man. Also, his spiritual view does take the body into account. According to Christianity, man must wrestle with the drives of his animal flesh and fend off temptation if he’s to reach a higher state of being. Alex is very much a sensual, sexual, and physical creature. He lives for fleshly desires and thrill of the moment. The chaplain would never say the body doesn’t matter. Body is always there, tempting man to act the animal than the saint. At any rate, in order for man to rise above bodily desires, he must rely on free will to choose the good and pursue the way of God. For the chaplain, freedom alone isn’t good enough. He knows well enough that freedom can mean freedom to be evil or good. Still, it is free will that offers man a choice between good and evil. There is NOTHING in what he said that would indicate that he thinks sociopaths are more ‘human’ than morally healthy people.

    Also, the fact that the chaplain works in a prison indicates that he does believe in the power of habit. After all, prisons exist to deny bad people freedom. Prisons exist to force bad men into daily routines and non-aggressive behavior. It is about control of bodies and conditioning them into new habits of routine and respect. And a good deal of Christianity is about how to shape and discipline the body and one’s habits toward moral and spiritual goals.

    Kubrick’s treatment of sex and violence veers between the pornographic and cartoonish. The entire movie is crude and cynical parody, with an ugly cast, grotesque costumes, hideous sets, and dreadful over-acting.

    My main issue with the film is its visceral power overrides its literary meanings. Burgess’s book is a novel of ideas, but Kubrick’s film is a spectacle of nihilism, especially because Kubrick prioritized cinematic expression over exploration of themes. The themes are there, but Malcolm McDowell’s star power and Kubrick’s visual prowess dominate. The result is something like The Triumph of the Villains.
    One may argue that anyone who enjoys the film as a thrill-ride is missing the point, the theme of free-will, but art works on several planes, and this is especially true of cinema that not only works as story but as spectacle, made all the more overwhelming with music. Form is content; the two is inseparable. The form of ACO doesn’t merely contain the message as content but is also the message, and it is “Wow, this is really exciting.”
    It’s like APOCALYPSE NOW may have been intended as an anti-war film, and Colonel Kilgore is meant to be a crazy guy, but anyone who watches that film can’t help but experience war as a rock opera and swoon at Kilgore as a god. So, those who missed the point actually got the bigger point, i.e. that cinema works on several levels, and the visceral experience may well overpower whatever intention it may have. Sam Peckinpah was never convincing when he said the point of THE WILD BUNCH was to make us feel sick about the violence. No, it’s too exciting and powerful, even beautiful, for that. Of course, some people make specious moral arguments, like the one about Brian DePalma’s SCARFACE being an anti-drug movie. Sure, the movie shows the sordid side of the drug business, and Tony Montana comes to a bad end, but what a rollercoaster while it lasted. And WALL STREET made more people want to work for the likes of Gekko. Even as Oliver Stone disdained the notion of ‘greed is good’, he presented Gekko as a god.

    • Replies: @Turk 152
    , @Dumbo
    , @Turk 152
  131. @Magylson

    Dawn of the dead was an excellent social commentary on the consumer society.

    No, the ‘satirical’ aspect of DAWN has no value. So, what is it saying? Consumers are all like zombies? That’s satire?

    Romero came up with a truly horrifying idea for the genre, and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is unforgivable and DAWN has its moments(and has special meaning for me given how I saw it), but the notion of Romero as intellectual, satirist, or man of ideas is just laughable. Leave it up to Dave Kehr’s sillier side to expound on this.

  132. Curle says:
    @RJ Macready

    I guess you are a filmmaker already but I hope you get to make the movies you want to make, like Kubrick did.

  133. Mike Tre says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    What was his name?

    (j/k)

    • LOL: John Johnson
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  134. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Magylson

    Dawn of the dead was an excellent social commentary on the consumer society.

    As social commentary DAWN OF THE DEAD was pretty trite.

  135. Turk 152 says:
    @Priss Factor

    That was brilliant, I have bookmarked your website.

  136. @Petronius

    In Burgess’ and Kubrick’s view, any attempt to radically erase the destructive sides of human nature for good would also erase the creative sides (exemplified by Beethoven).

    It’s like what Yoko or Woke-O Ono did to Lennon.

    “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper”.

  137. @Steve Sailer

    I don’t think the appreciation of clockwork orange has anything to do with high IQ, I think it appeals to the type of guy that liked torturing cats when he was a kid. This usually turns into abusing people at a later age. People who get sexually aroused seeing people being abused and tortured are sick, they need to be locked up for the sake of society.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  138. Malla says:
    @Geowhizz

    Read that Kubrick once said paraphrasing “Hitler was mostly right about The Jews.”

    Actually it was more like “Hitler was right about nearly everything”

  139. In some sense, A Clockwork Orange plays off the Hannah Arendt quote that Patrick Moynihan used spout.

    “Every civilization is invaded by barbarians once per generation , we call them children.”

    A Clockwork Orange has a visually unique style of the upper-class intellectual art house type. The architecture, the art work scattered about, the use of classical music, all point to a more cerebral aesthetic. The ultra-violence, the disdain for social norms, and embracing of the lower aspects of human nature, express contempt for authority and jejune middle-class banalities.

    The movie moves back and forth between the extremes.

    More about Patrick Moynihan:
    https://hnn.us/article/163802

  140. Never mind the stupid vid, this version is immeasurably superior:

  141. Dan Hayes says:
    @Alfred

    Modern Dubliners have no need to travel far to feast on Black physiognomy!

  142. @dfordoom

    “I get the impression the reviewer would have been happier with a set of safe cosy moral platitudes. Both liberals and conservatives have offered us safe cosy moral platitudes and it hasn’t helped.”
    I think the reviewer feels that Kubrick is trying to “have his cake & eat it too”. That is, the film is supposedly criticizing violence, porn, moral depravity etc but at the same time goes out of its way to lay the violence etc on as thick as possible. So thick it’s satire? Or perhaps almost a celebration of violence, rape etc ?
    I can’t remember much of the film at all, so I can’t say whether the reviewer is right or wrong.

  143. Dumbo says:
    @Priss Factor

    He isn’t merely funny like Joe Pesci’s characters in GOODFELLAS and CASINO.

    Funny how?

  144. @A Half Naked Fakir

    “How would the psychiatrists make their livelihood if we kill off the most violent sociopaths?”
    How would we find people to staff the upper levels of government, business & the military if we killed all the sociopaths ?

    • Replies: @A Half Naked Fakir
  145. @Alfred

    Today, the West is obsessed with surface ships and aircraft. After a few thrashings, they will learn of the importance of rockets.

    I respect you, but you wrote your comment as if Americans have never done anything with rockets.

    Any weapons you see are old news. It’s the ones they’re not showing that will amaze you years from now. It’s always been like that. Americans play poker. With rockets, even.

  146. @animalogic

    “How would we find people to staff the upper levels of government, business & the military if we killed all the sociopaths ?”

    The whole shebang (military-industrial-political) would come crashing down and then not only the shrinks would be unemployed but possibly, the whole world would go into depression.

  147. Marckus says:

    Amen to your great comment. It looks like the majority hate America and love Russia and China as if those places are or will be infinitely better for our lives. This seems to be the fashion. Your comment is right on. No country developing a new weapon from a rifle to a rocket ever advertises the fact.

    The development of the STG 44 by the Wehrmacht was a secret. The Germans were never aware of the T34 until they encountered the tank on the battlefield and the Russians found out about the Tiger Tank in the field. Thus, this posturing by China that they have flocks of anti-ship missiles and Russia with a missile that dives under the sea, circles the moon and attacks through the earth’s crust is sheer b/s. I will believe it when I see it.

    There are too many pseudo Field Marshals on UR (Showmethereal is one) who never even went through even basic, but after reading a few articles by East Indian authors believe the most incredible shit.

    Alfred is a very intelligent guy and like you I respect his commentary but as I said in previous comments “Don’t underestimate the USA!”

    • Replies: @plannumber9
  148. @John Johnson

    “Great acting by Malcom though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.”

    I guess you don’t know much about actors and acting. Just take Patrick Magee, for example. He was such a great actor that Beckett wrote “Krapp’s Last Tape” with Magee’s unforgettable voice in mind. John Hurt was good in that play but he couldn’t surpass Magee. There was a BBC radio broadcast of Magee reading The Poor Mouth in the late 1970s which was wonderful but I think the BBC have destroyed it.

    I saw Clockwork Orange when it came out and I thought it was terrific. All my friends thought the same. I particularly liked the soundtrack contributions by Walter / Wendy Carlos. His or her Bach interpretations were very popular in the UK.

    I used to work with someone who was wandering around some land in Hertfordshire looking for badgers when he was approached by a man who asked him what he was doing. They had a long and pleasant chat about badgers during which this man mentioned that he was a filmmaker. My workmate said his name was something like “Kubrick”. He’d never heard of him.

  149. Alfa158 says:

    Malcolm told an anecdote about the movie that reflected how convincing his acting was in that role.
    He had been in the habit of going out to a shop near his flat every Sunday morning to buy the Sunday papers. After Clockwork Orange came out he noticed one morning that the shopkeeper seemed to be acting oddly, nervous, and overly deferential. Malcolm realized what the problem and told the shopkeeper that it was OK, it was just an acting role and he isn’t really anything at all like Alex.

  150. @Anonymous

    But when they are not executed, or sentenced to do hard labor in places like Siberia, all,kinds of terrible things, cults like the Bolshevik coup, cultural Marxism, Mao’s Cultural Revolution or our own MTV, Black Rap Music, Harvey Weinstein movies and his cult break out.

    Bolsheviks shipped anarcho-types to Siberia.

    Also, elites hate people like Alex who is an equal-opportunity attacker owned by no one. He attacks poor and rich alike. In contrast, red guards and antifa are controlled goons useful to the rulers. Antifa don’t attack the deep state. Red guards were Mao’s minions.

    Alex is his own man.

  151. @Steve Sailer

    “A Clockwork Orange is enormously entertaining for guys with three-digit IQs”

    Now I know why Clockwork is my least favorite Kubrick Joint.

  152. @A British reader

    I guess you don’t know much about actors and acting. Just take Patrick Magee, for example.

    He barely has any lines. In the home invasion he was kicked and tied up.

    He makes a good face in the iconic torture scene but was underutilized.

    Before Alex he goes off to prison there are all kinds of cringeworthy exchanges with amateur actors. His parents aren’t at all believable and some of the authority figures seem to be from a Monty Python sketch.

    I saw Clockwork Orange when it came out and I thought it was terrific. All my friends thought the same. I particularly liked the soundtrack contributions by Walter / Wendy Carlos. His or her Bach interpretations were very popular in the UK.

    It has some entertainment value but I’d describe it as above average 60s/70s cheese trash which isn’t saying much. Above rollerball but below Wild Angels and Westworld.

  153. @Alfred

    “After a few thrashings, they will learn the importance of rockets.”

    This comment makes sense when read in the voice of Wernher von Braun.

  154. @No jack London

    “Did Trevor review the Jack Nicholson film ‘Five Easy Pieces’?”

    Great, great film. It centers on the protagonist’s alienation from the rest of the humanoids. Lynch won’t like it because alienation is a decadent weakness that all White Men who will build the new White American Nation must shun.

  155. In the first half of the film, we see the gratuitous violence enjoyed by Alex and his droogs. This, especially the enjoyment of the fight with a rival gang, was partly based on the British street gangs of the time, which continued for decades after the film in the form of football (soccer) gangs. Claims that the film induced copycat violence led Kubrick to withdraw the film in the UK, and it was difficult to watch it here until Kubrick died and it was re-released. At this point the film was no longer topical, and so many people in the UK have never seen it.

    In the second half of the film, after Alex is caught, we see the British prison system of the era, which was notorious for humiliating its inmates. We also see the efforts to reform Alex and, once he appears to be reformed, his exceptional value to powerful people – so much so that anyone who spoils the narrative will be “put away”.

    You can draw a straight line from here to the futile efforts of the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology to reform Islamist terrorists, and the massacre at Fishmongers’ Hall in London in December 2019 by the supposedly de-radicalised Usman Khan. The Institute of Criminology was indeed powerful, and at the time was using the apparent success of its work to bid for a £45 million contract in offender management.

    A Clockwork Orange should be required viewing for anybody who works in the British Criminal Justice system, especially those who favour “reform”. But for the reasons given above many such people have never seen the film, and are unaware that it carries any messages apart from gratuitous violence.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  156. @Priss Factor

    He sought to disorient us

    Sure, it seems a lot like being drugged and raped, psychologically anyways . . he wants to you to experience this. I wonder why.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  157. @Mike Tre

    LOL

    Caroline.

    ❤️

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  158. @gar manar nar

    Sure, it seems a lot like being drugged and raped, psychologically anyways . . he wants to you to experience this. I wonder why.

    Actually, what you describe is immersive, not disorienting. Being drugged and raped means you are unaware or surrender to the power and/or pleasure. Violence in ACO is at once alluring/ecstatic and ugly/repulsive. Being drugged means lowered consciousness. Kubrick makes us feel different levels and angles of consciousness.

    Also, the cerebral aspect of Kubrick’s films rarely allow us to fully immerse ourselves in the pain or pleasure. Indeed, some have complained that EYES WIDE SHUT is oddly bloodless for such a sexually charged work. It’s like orgy under a cold shower.
    Alex’s crime spree halt abruptly in ACO and the bulk of the movie is the denial of his nature.

    There’s a hypnotic aspect to ACO, especially in the impressive opening, and Kubrick could induce trance-like state in the audience, but it was to broaden consciousness, not to stupefy or deaden it.

    • Replies: @gar manar nar
  159. @James N. Kennett

    This, especially the enjoyment of the fight with a rival gang, was partly based on the British street gangs of the time, which continued for decades after the film in the form of football (soccer) gangs.

    Roger Ebert says SID AND NANCY reminded him of ACO. The Punk scene surely had the most baleful effect on British youth culture in the 70s.

    In the second half of the film, after Alex is caught, we see the British prison system of the era, which was notorious for humiliating its inmates.

    The authorities can be nasty, but their treatment of Alex doesn’t seem so out of line given his willful nature. After all, sociopaths like Alex don’t reciprocate kindness or decency. He’s always looking to take advantage, and people in prison know it.

    The tough(and loud)talking chief guard(who could give Sgt Hartman a run for the money) can be a real son of a bitch, but he takes his job seriously and does it well. He’s totally dedicated to the system and his role in it, and such stuff interested Kubrick more than the novel’s theme about free will. ACO gave Kubrick an opportunity to delve into the workings of power. In order for the elites treat Alex with pseudo-civility, men like the chief guard must play the role of enforcer, pit bull. It says so much about the structure of the British Empire. A world of genteel men guarded by hardnosed men with big sticks. Those with the most power outwardly display it least because those with less power, the enforcers, do the dirty work of manifesting power as brute force.

    You can draw a straight line from here to the futile efforts of the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology to reform Islamist terrorists, and the massacre at Fishmongers’ Hall in London in December 2019 by the supposedly de-radicalised Usman Khan.

    There is no straight line. In ACO, the treatment certainly worked. If anything, it worked too well, turning Alex into a vegetable at the hands of his tormentors. Also, his averse reaction to Beethoven’s 9th was an accident. So, the authorities ‘cured’ him back to win back public support.

    In contrast, attempts to de-radicalize Muslims in UK were doomed from the beginning because the highest value in UK, apart from sucking up to holy Jews, is ‘diversity’.

    In ACO, the power came up with an effective treatment but failed to see all the consequences, which allowed the rivals to attempt a checkmate. All very ironic since the very people who turn Alex into a sympathetic figure in public eyes involve one of his victims who want to see him suffer to no end.

    ACO is about the danger of the ‘perfect’ treatment that works too well, making Alex fearful not only of violence but music.

    But UK’s attempts to reform non-white radicals and thugs have been half-assed because they dare not question the merits of ‘diversity’ and are prone to somehow blame whiteness for the ills of non-white groups.

  160. @A British reader

    “Great acting by Malcom though and a shame he was surrounded by amateurs.”

    I guess you don’t know much about actors and acting.

    Dim is especially memorable. Totally cracks me up. Fine acting all around.

    The problem isn’t that McDowell was surrounded by amateurs but he’s the only one with star power whereas everyone else plays a caricature. They do it really well, but they are relatively cartoonish in comparison to the Alex who is at least three dimensional.

    Star power may not make a person sympathetic, and it’s hard to imagine anyone sympathizing with Alex’s exploits. But star power provokes a more dangerous feeling in us, an adulation of the ‘cool’ nihilist who has the audacity to make up his own rules. There is an Id in each of us, but we keep it caged for good reason. But even as we fear it, we are excited by it, which is why law-abiding people root for bank robbers in movies. Or for Tony Montana with ‘balls’.
    Alex may not be sympathetic but is certainly made pop-mythic.

    If ACO has a moral problem, Alex’s balls are too big and glow with star power while, at the same time, his victims have been flattened into two dimensional cartoon figures who look ridiculous and don’t really elicit our sympathy. It didn’t matter in DR. STRANGELOVE because EVERYONE there is a caricature and there’s a consistency of vision: mad satire from beginning to end, with everyone deserving ridicule.
    In contrast, ACO is like 1/3 spectacle(not unlike SPARTACUS and 2002), 1/3 drama, and 1/3 comedy. Alex is given some dramatic gravitas, which is denied to everyone else, even his hapless victims. If at the very least, Alex is humanized(and even idolized), why is everyone else only good for mockery, ridicule, or unconcern?

    Dim is hilarious and well played… but only a cartoon.

    • Replies: @A British reader
  161. @Joe Paluka

    I don’t think the appreciation of clockwork orange has anything to do with high IQ, I think it appeals to the type of guy that liked torturing cats when he was a kid. This usually turns into abusing people at a later age. People who get sexually aroused seeing people being abused and tortured are sick, they need to be locked up for the sake of society.

    Yea but what if they play electronic Beethoven in the background and make stylistic British comments while torturing the cat?

  162. @animalogic

    Or perhaps almost a celebration of violence, rape etc ?

    The rape juggles tragedy with comedy(even with a musical). The gaiety of the moment(for Alex and his droogs) is utterly indifferent to the gravity of the act. At the very least, both the perpetrator and the victim in STRAW DOGS were agreed on the seriousness of the situation. The rape in ACO has an element of joy, even ecstasy, but it’s also childlike, and perhaps there is a relation between sociopathy and child psychology. As deviant and nasty as Alex is(he is also intelligent), there is something ‘innocent’ about his deeds and emotions. Children have limited empathy, which develops later. At least in part, sociopaths may be dangerous precisely because something within them fails to grow out of childhood. So, even as they develop adult ambition and sexuality, a part of their psychology remains childlike and fails to appreciate the full consequences of their actions on others. Just like children are fixated mostly on ‘my fun’, sociopaths see other people as their ‘toys’. The rape scene in ACO is like child-play with adult-victims as ‘toys’. That creates emotional dissonance in the viewer. The scene is like an episode of Romper Room with Rape. So ‘innocent’ in its perversion.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  163. @A. Hipster

    One could argue that Alex, even following the Ludovico Treatment, has free will. He can still choose to be evil than good or choose to be genuinely good on the inside. He just can’t ACT OUT bad deeds. Ludovico effect kicks in only when he tries to ACT on his vile or evil impulses. It doesn’t rob him of the freedom to have bad thoughts. So, one could argue it robs him of free action than free will. His inner soul still can choose between the good and evil.

  164. @Priss Factor

    Excellent analysis. The key word is caricature.

    After McDowell went to Hollywood his roles seemed to go from a representative of angry and confused British youth to a sinister old man almost overnight. I can’t remember him looking like anyone aged between 25 and 60.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  165. @Priss Factor

    Great reply. I really will need to watch ACO again.

  166. @A British reader

    The reason for that was that he was in the States from CALIGULA through TIME AFTER TIME to BLUE THUNDER. BRITANNIA HOSPITAL was actually shot after BLUE THUNDER but released previously.

    Also, by McDowell’s own admission, his consumption of cocaine was legendary in Hollywood. It reached a peak with CAT PEOPLE in 1982 when he went to work for Paul Schrader.

    He had long been a heavy drinker as the son of a publican.

    Also, he played a “youth” for years before playing Alex. His first role was the young man in CROSSROADS back in 1964.

  167. Turk 152 says:
    @Priss Factor

    One perspective I would like to add to this excellent commentary is that in Eyes Wide Shut, we see that Kubrick has unique insight into the monstrous nature of our aristocracy who have unlimited power to indulge in whatever fantasy suits them. Perhaps CO wasn’t a commentary on the populace but rather an expose of the altered reality that our elite can freely indulge themselves in.

    Being able to engage in the thrill ride of violence, rape and art doesn’t put him at the bottom of society, but at its highest levels.

    Secondly, You can kill all the beggars and prostitutes you want but when you start to go after our class, you will be reformed. Alex only got into trouble when he raped and killed a member of the wrong class. That is when the movie really became available interesting and our glee at the ecstasy of the violence really crescendoes. Does the real joy ride come from subjugating our rulers to the barbarity that much of them deserve? If Alex broke into the home of a shopkeeper and raped and murdered his school teacher wife the audiance would have a very different reaction.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  168. Colinsky says:

    I read A CLOCKWORK ORANGE when it came out in 1962 and the slang was difficult at first but Burgess kept it consistent and the meanings became obvious in context.

    Burgess wrote it in a hurry because a doctor’s mis-diagnosis told him he had only a short time left to live, and he cranked out two books fast to generate some money for his family. The other one was THE WANTING SEED, which I dismissed as absolutely impossible, a sci-fi future that could never be.

    Except, I look around today and it’s almost here. SEED is almost the same book as CLOCKWORK, as far as the dystopian landscape of the story. It’s about a guy who has to pretend to be homosexual because he would lose his job if it became known that he was hetero. Government has pressured society into homosexuality because of overpopulation–too many people!

    My favorite Burgess book was HONEY FOR THE BEARS, about a guy who had to go to Moscow on business trips and discovered that he could pay for the trip by selling the pants he was wearing on the black market.

  169. One of the best sociopath roles.

    Maybe the most disturbing.

    Willams’ best role.

    [MORE]

    True work of art.

    Tough nut to crack.

    Clearly influenced by ACO

  170. @Priss Factor

    Being drugged means lowered consciousness.

    Depends on the drug. The point is that he lures his audience into a psychologically vulnerable state before subjecting them to a series of shocking or violent images . . sort of like the psychology test in Parallax View . .

  171. oldguy says:

    I view this story as a Skinnerbox experiment. It tells s story of the choices society has in dealing with criminals and their rehabilitation by either treating them as having free will and examining what goes into the prisoners behavior or, not caring about past influences and simply using B.F. skinners behavior modification tools such as negative reinforcement.

    You see the elites of society at the end of the movie surrounding a fornicating Alex, applauding him after restoring his free will but they do not seem very happy about doing so.

  172. @Turk 152

    That is when the movie really became available interesting and our glee at the ecstasy of the violence really crescendoes. Does the real joy ride come from subjugating our rulers to the barbarity that much of them deserve? If Alex broke into the home of a shopkeeper and raped and murdered his school teacher wife the audiance would have a very different reaction.

    This is also why Kubrick made the husband go gay.

    We weren’t supposed to pity him because was he just some boring overpaid book writing faggot. He seeks revenge but we aren’t supposed to believe he really misses his wife that much since he has since moved on to speedo Hanz.

    As you said the story wouldn’t work if Alex killed a shopkeep.

    It’s actually really twisted because Kubrick only puts value in the woman as a temporary toy for either of them. Watching the movie a second or third time helps you see how manipulative Kubrick is with the audience. He really coaxes them into feeling sorry for a psycho over a woman that was raped and killed.

    Kubrick doesn’t seem to like women. He usually depicts them as whores or controlling shrills.

    He should have just made military movies. Full Metal Jacket should have been a 4 part series.

  173. This review is idiotic and encapsulates, with its adulation of the “normal”, what is wrong with the so-called White Nationalism, and why it will never succeed in its claimed goals. For if the “normal” is by definition what most people are and do, and it has somehow escaped the reviewer’s notice that what the majority in this society are and do is intensely hostile to white racism of any kind, what remains to be said? To the agreement of many in the commentariat, we are told Alex and his friends, are “sociopaths” and “should simply be killed”. Of course, many “normal” people would say the same thing about white racists, so it would seem that who is or is not a “sociopath” and who should be killed really depends on who is making the call. Also, the review fairly teems with the reviewer’s schoolgirl disgust at violence, “porn”, and “the degradation of women”. Such a sensitive soul! He shows such empathy! LOL. But how, without violence, is the white race to be saved? If it won’t be, then its future depends on the “sociopath”, not the sensitive, empathetic, non-violent, rule-following sheep.

    The movie itself is significant from a theoretical standpoint because so many in right-wing circles claim that white people have been brainwashed, victims of a behaviorist attack much like Alex experiences. The cultural destruction is everywhere now. In effect, their eyelids have been collectively clamped open while they are shown endless video of negroes and other brown people copulating with their women. According to this narrative, “normal” white people have been made to love it all — the jungle music, their own racial humiliation, and even their own victimization by rape, robbery, and murder — to the point it is now only a few who even mildly object. Consequently, holding up “normal” behavior as something to admire in such a sick society seems a poor, self-destructive strategy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Trevor Lynch
  174. dfordoom says: • Website
    @animalogic

    I think the reviewer feels that Kubrick is trying to “have his cake & eat it too”. That is, the film is supposedly criticizing violence, porn, moral depravity etc but at the same time goes out of its way to lay the violence etc on as thick as possible.

    There’s always the problem that if you want to deal with issues like sex and violence it’s very difficult to do so without confronting those issues. You can’t make a movie about moral depravity without showing moral depravity.

    By 1971 standards A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is not that violent.

  175. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    To the agreement of many in the commentariat, we are told Alex and his friends, are “sociopaths” and “should simply be killed”. Of course, many “normal” people would say the same thing about white racists, so it would seem that who is or is not a “sociopath” and who should be killed really depends on who is making the call.

    Yep, The cluelessness of white nationalists is staggering. They are the ones who are going to be treated the way Alex is treated in the film, and they are the ones who are going to get the Ludovico Treatment (probably in a much nastier form). They are the ones who are, in the eyes of most normal people, every bit as dangerous as thugs like Alex.

    The movie is just as relevant today as it was in 1971. Governments today have just as much enthusiasm for draconian methods of social control as the government in the film. And, just like the government in the movie, governments today can count on public support for those draconian methods of social control. And those draconian methods of social control are going to be used against rightoids.

    A less clueless reviewer might have noticed such obvious things.

  176. @A British reader

    Philip Stone as Alex’s dad was also a pretty decent character actor. He also was a favorite of Kubrick’s, appearing in Barry Lyndon, and as Grady in The Shining.

  177. @Steve Sailer

    “A Clockwork Orange” is enormously entertaining for guys with three-digit IQs. It might be the single most all-around entertaining movie ever made for highbrow men.

    Three-digit IQs encompass average and middle-brow intellects, who are the people most likely to think that:

    1. One can turn a sociopath into a normal person by making him sick while showing him movies of sex and violence. In other words, there’s no difference between empathy and/or good character and a sour stomach.

    2. Freedom of choice is a necessary condition for morality and humanity (the old libertarian apology for moral laxness), which means that sociopaths are better moral agents and more human than gentlemen, who through habit and moral sentiment are less “free” to behave dishonorably.

    3. A movie that decorates rape, wanton cruelty, cartoonish acting, and crude parody with little sprigs of middle-brow moralizing is redeemed by it.

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
  178. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    This review is idiotic and encapsulates, with its adulation of the “normal”, what is wrong with the so-called White Nationalism, and why it will never succeed in its claimed goals. For if the “normal” is by definition what most people are and do, and it has somehow escaped the reviewer’s notice that what the majority in this society are and do is intensely hostile to white racism of any kind, what remains to be said? To the agreement of many in the commentariat, we are told Alex and his friends, are “sociopaths” and “should simply be killed”. Of course, many “normal” people would say the same thing about white racists, so it would seem that who is or is not a “sociopath” and who should be killed really depends on who is making the call. Also, the review fairly teems with the reviewer’s schoolgirl disgust at violence, “porn”, and “the degradation of women”. Such a sensitive soul! He shows such empathy! LOL. But how, without violence, is the white race to be saved? If it won’t be, then its future depends on the “sociopath”, not the sensitive, empathetic, non-violent, rule-following sheep.

    It is quite clear from my review that I am using “normal” people to refer to morally and psychologically healthy people, as opposed to criminal sociopaths like Alex.

    Sadly, White Nationalism teems with sociopaths. They tend to sneer at empathy and moral standards and praise violence and hate. They think that only sociopaths like them can lead us to victory. They routinely go on shooting sprees. But recent experience has shown that sociopaths don’t make good organizers, comrades, or leaders.

  179. @Trevor Lynch

    Freedom of choice is a necessary condition for morality and humanity (the old libertarian apology for moral laxness), which means that sociopaths are better moral agents and more human than gentlemen, who through habit and moral sentiment are less “free” to behave dishonorably.

    Not that sociopathy is a good thing per se, but I think Nietzsche might agree with the sentiments here if you replaced “sociopath” with another word.

  180. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Burgess’ wife was raped and badly injured by American soldiers during the war. I never heard Clockwork Orange was written because of the rape.

    Burgess’ mother died of Spanish flu 1918. Dad called and spoke to her about 8 AM. Found her dead when he got home in the late afternoon.

  181. Alden says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    So you’re a devoted reader, and believer in, the anti White propaganda of the liberal media.

  182. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    It is quite clear from my review that I am using “normal” people to refer to morally and psychologically healthy people, as opposed to criminal sociopaths like Alex.

    Most people use the term “normal” people to refer to “people with whom I agree” or “people who are like me”.

    Sadly, White Nationalism teems with sociopaths. They tend to sneer at empathy and moral standards and praise violence and hate. They think that only sociopaths like them can lead us to victory.

    If you’re correct and White Nationalism teems with sociopaths might that be an indication that White Nationalism is a sociopathic ideology?

    My impression of White Nationalism is that it teems with people who are severely disconnected from reality.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  183. Trevor Lynch: “It is quite clear from my review that I am using “normal” people to refer to morally and psychologically healthy people, as opposed to criminal sociopaths like Alex.”

    What constitutes normal varies from place to place and time to time. In some societies, it’s normal to throw butt-munching faggots off of tall buildings or stone them to death. It’s reasonably considered a pro-social act; a defense of the group. But when we look closely it turns out there is no objective definition of “mental health”, only the usual ingroup/outgroup functional classifications common to all human societies. Everyone in the ingroup empathizes to a degree with fellow ingroup members, and with the outgroup little if at all. Furthermore, everyone favors his own interests most of all, just as a Darwinian would expect. Much like “racist”, “sociopath” is just a label applied to mark someone as outgroup; someone inimical to society as you conceive it to be or want it to be.

    Trevor Lynch: “But recent experience has shown that sociopaths don’t make good organizers, comrades, or leaders. ”

    That’s far from obvious. Many people consider Hitler a sociopath, and yet he was a great organizer and leader. Even in this movie Alex organizes and leads on a small scale. Both were criminals and served jail time.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  184. Is a sociopath lacking in empathy or sympathy? Empathy means putting oneself in others’ shoes and seeing things from their point of view. Some people are capable of this, but they nevertheless feel no sympathy for others. They understand but don’t care or share in the emotions.

    Also, lack of empathy doesn’t necessarily mean lack of sympathy. Dogs can’t empathize with humans or cats, but they care about humans and cats(if friends in the same household). Some simple-minded people are too dim for empathy but they are full of love for others.

    Is there a term for someone whose problem isn’t lack for concern for others but lack of autonomous self? If sociopaths care about themselves but feel nothing for others, what about someone who is totally concerned about what OTHERS think/feel about him or her and seriously lack a sense of his or her own thought or feelings? It seems lots of yellows are like this. Very weak sense of self but very real concern about how OTHERS think/feel about them.

    Jews are into Jewishness, blacks are into blackness. But yellows seem to be about how-others-feel-about-them. Blacks attack them but they say nothing about it because the dominant power would disapprove of such complaints. Instead, yellows go with the approved narrative and blame ‘white supremacism’.

    If sociopathy is lack of concern for others in society, could a weak sense of self or lack of autonomy be called ‘autopathy’ or ‘indepathy’ or ‘selfpathy’?

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  185. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    What constitutes normal varies from place to place and time to time. In some societies, it’s normal to throw butt-munching faggots off of tall buildings or stone them to death.

    That is true of social or cultural norms. Social or cultural norms often depend on who has the power, what dogma prevails, tradition and customs, fashions and fads.

    But there are natural norms, and those are related to connection between behavior and health.

    Foot-binding in China was a social norm. Many women had bound feet, and such were highly prized as ‘beautiful’.
    But it went against natural norms. Feet are meant to grow, walk, be sturdy, and healthy.
    A civilization grows sick when social norms deviate too much from natural norms.
    That is the state of the West today with globo-homo, tranny-wanny, druggy-wuggy, tattoos/piercings, and ultra-hedonism. Natural drives, if unchecked, can undermine natural health.

    Nature is harsh and made it difficult to any organism to indulge in its pleasures. Pleasures served as incentive but not indulgence. But humans can indulge in food, sex, drugs, and etc, without being checked. Results have been dire.

    Smoking became a social norm, but it is not a natural norm, at least where health is concerned. However, one could say people’s partiality to tobacco is part of the natural norm. People naturally like pleasure and are attracted to anything that provides it. So, many people become addicted to smoking, drink, drugs, sugary food, and etc. Pleasure is natural but too much is unhealthy.

    Natural Normality in service of health is best.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  186. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    But recent experience has shown that sociopaths don’t make good organizers, comrades, or leaders.

    Most successful political leaders are sociopaths to some degree. The more successful the political leader the stronger the sociopathic tendencies.

    The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you’ll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher quality.

    Being a sociopath is pretty much a requirement for success as a political leader but it’s not enough on its own. You also need a certain degree of intelligence. And you need to be the kind of sociopath who has the ability to attract followers. Rather than just a loser sociopath. It also helps if you have an actual plan.

    Alex is the kind of sociopath who today would become a White Nationalist. The government in A Clockwork Orange is run by higher-quality sociopaths.

  187. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    You are stealing my answer to Dr. Robert Morgan, thanks. Otherwise materialist, but there are a few points that betray your pacifist individualism.

    > “Foot-binding in China was a social norm. Many women had bound feet, and such were highly prized as ‘beautiful’.”
    > “But it went against natural norms. Feet are meant to grow, walk, be sturdy, and healthy.”

    Utter horseshit. Idealist horseshit. You betray your total ignorance of the Darwinist theory. It is the populations that survive, not female feet. Darwin never talked about feet. Feet don’t even have penises (unless you agree with (((Freud)))). Let alone feelings – feelings do not procreate either. Why do you Westerners constantly fall into this trap?

    The Chinese civilisation survived for a millennium when its females had their feet broken and deformed cruelly and painfully. It reflected on their [Chinese] survival not at all. Men procreate with women, feet are not necessarily involved in the process.

    Natural is not concerned with how feet grow or otherwise. Natural is concerned with the physical survival of the material population.

    Broken feet are only a hindrance if you have to move your women in a luggage train, like during the Völkerwanderung in Europe. Or if one has to put his females in factories to produce bombs for the popular war effort. By the gods, why is you imagination so idealistic and weak? Asians are indeed superior in everything.

    > “Pleasure is natural but too much is unhealthy.”

    You have forgotten to specify that natural fitness is determined by the naturally unfit being killed in war. (Should I specify that I’m talking about populations again?)

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  188. @dfordoom

    Most successful political leaders are sociopaths to some degree. The more successful the political leader the stronger the sociopathic tendencies.

    The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement.

    Sociopaths need not flourish in every system. It really depends on the criteria for selection. One of the problems with empowering the masses is that it gives a role to people with average and below-average levels of discernment in choosing who rises to the top, and that virtually guarantees that sociopathic con artists will rise into positions of prominence.

    The White Nationalist movement needs to weed out sociopathic types. Let the system have them.

    • Replies: @Turk 152
    , @dfordoom
  189. @Priss Factor

    Trevor Lynch: “But recent experience has shown that sociopaths don’t make good organizers, comrades, or leaders. ”

    That’s far from obvious. Many people consider Hitler a sociopath, and yet he was a great organizer and leader. Even in this movie Alex organizes and leads on a small scale. Both were criminals and served jail time.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever met a real sociopath. They can be superficially charming, but if you spend any time around them, you will quickly see the cold, dark void of fellow feeling at their cores.

    Alex is part of a group of four, and when he starts acting the leader of the other three, he’s brutal and high-handed, which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he’s a lousy leader, and his gang are lousy followers, because sociopaths lack fellow feeling, which makes it impossible for them to feel loyalty and solidarity and difficult for them to understand one another.

    Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him. I know words like “sociopath” or “madman” are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don’t fit Hitler.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @dfordoom
  190. The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you’ll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher quality.

    No, extreme Jews are supported by rich Jews, whereas ‘extreme’ whites are rejected by successful whites.

    Most Neocons are silly people. But they got backing.

    Even is ‘extreme’ whites were all high-quality, they would be rejected by moneyed whites because Jews control the gods.

  191. At 19 in 1989 I was turned on to this movie by my boss who put it on while I was house sitting for him. I’d heard of it but had no conception of it. To me then it just was a mess of people places and things I had no way of understanding. Thus I didn’t really like it. Fast forward to 1999 and the book is enthralling me and informing my viewership of this modern classic. The metaphorical comparisons to our depraved modern society bring it all full circle.

  192. @Oscar Peterson

    “Alex encounters a former gang member who has gone straight and begins to imagine a future with a wife and son. It’s an abrupt change in 10 pages and Alex retains the self-pity that makes you wonder whether that could really happen.”

    This is the version I read, and it is vital to the story.

    ACO was published in 1962, and was astonishingly prescient. The movie inspired 1970’s punk attitudes and the enormous cultural impact which reverberates to this day. The Sex Pistols and ‘Anarchy in the UK’ were Alex’ character for those who couldn’t get enough of him.

    Like the protagonist, we can all look at our younger selves and see a different person. Johnny Rotten, like a real life Alex, eventually got old, and now he waxes nostalgic for old England.

  193. @dfordoom

    Most people use the term “normal” people to refer to “people with whom I agree” or “people who are like me”

    I don’t identify as White nationalist or normal but if Alex isn’t a sociopath then the term is meaningless.

    He rapes and kills purely for pleasure and with zero remorse. Everyone finds him charming even though he may kill you at a moment’s notice.

    The defining characteristics of a sociopath are often stretched for political purposes but this isn’t once of those cases.

    • Thanks: Trevor Lynch
  194. @Adûnâi

    The Chinese civilisation survived for a millennium when its females had their feet broken and deformed cruelly and painfully. It reflected on their [Chinese] survival not at all.

    That actually didn’t become popular until the 19th century.

    Asians are indeed superior in everything.

    Yea not really. Even with over a thousand years of experimentation they didn’t figure out that poking someone with a needle doesn’t actually cure a disease.

    They also ignored the failures of Marxism under Stalin and chose to have their own revolution anyways where some guy named Mao told them that they needed to torture schoolteachers for it to work. Genius stuff.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  195. Turk 152 says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    As long as it your socio-path, doing your dirty work, nobody cares about a sociopath. At one time 90% of the US supported the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, but now you cant find anyone who will state they did and they were wrong. Kubrick is brilliant because he exposed our collective schizophrenia by letting us know how much we enjoy it.

  196. Trevor Lynch: “Alex is part of a group of four, and when he starts acting the leader of the other three, he’s brutal and high-handed, which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he’s a lousy leader …”

    Hitler could be treacherous and brutal too. Alex miscalculated, whereas Hitler, in the night of the long knives, didn’t miscalculate. The moral would seem to be that when you betray somebody, don’t leave them alive so they can take revenge. Thus, you could say that Alex’s mistake was that he wasn’t sociopathic enough. But then, not everyone can be a Hitler.

    Trevor Lynch: “I know words like “sociopath” or “madman” are thrown around constantly as insults, but they also mean things in the real world, and they don’t fit Hitler. ”

    Their meaning is in their social significance. They mean “I don’t like you”, and mark someone as outgroup. But there is no objective definition of mental health, only various types of animal behavior. Either the behavior helps the animal survive, or it doesn’t. Raised in brutality, one becomes brutal. Raised in a technological society, we get the kind of “normal” white people who celebrate their own racial destruction. In such an environment, “normality” is overrated. By feeding into this mentality, your review is counterproductive.

    Trevor Lynch: “The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement. ”

    Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.

  197. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Cast out all the wolves, and you are left with only sheep.

    There are wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs to protect the flock.

    In a well-run society, the sheepdogs cull the wolves. Healthy people don’t need sociopaths. They need us.

    The story of the Rohm purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm, but Rohm betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe the worst of Rohm until it was almost too late.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  198. Trevor Lynch: “In a well-run society, the sheepdogs cull the wolves. Healthy people don’t need sociopaths. They need us. ”

    Getting rid of all the wolves sounds like a terrific idea — especially if you are a sheep, or maybe a sheep herder who hopes to fleece his flock. But for saving the white race as it is, it’s not a good idea at all.

    Trevor Lynch: “The story of the Rohm purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm, but Rohm betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe the worst of Rohm until it was almost too late.”

    Uncle Wolf was never in any danger from Roehm, he was just in the way of his plans. In true “sociopath” form, he dropped Roehm as soon as it became expedient.

  199. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    > “That actually didn’t become popular until the 19th century.”

    The Manchus issued a number of edicts to ban the practice, first in 1636 when the Manchu leader Hong Taiji declared the founding of the new Qing dynasty, then in 1638, and another in 1664 by the Kangxi Emperor.

    > “Even with over a thousand years of experimentation they didn’t figure out that poking someone with a needle doesn’t actually cure a disease.”

    And after 300 years, Americans didn’t figure out Negroes should be exterminated. Magical thinking is still widespread among all races of man – from Jesus-worship to dowsing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing

    > “They also ignored the failures of (((Marxism))) under Stalin and chose to have their own revolution anyways…”

    I’m honestly surprised at how stupid an idiot can get. The depths of retardation!

    The USSR under Stalin went from a country that had just lost 20 million people in the most brutal civil war to being victorious in a grueling 4-year-long total war of extermination against all of Europe under a 90-million-strong Germany, to acquiring atomic weapons and sending a man into space. I shudder to think how a Stalin-hater must see the world. Utter schizophrenia. Absolute denial of reality.

    Mao Zedong was the first Chinese to defeat Americans in an open war (alongside Comrade Kim Il Sung of Korea). Mao Zedong ended the century of humiliation. That is a historical fact.

    P.S. The fact that such giants of action as Stalin and Hitler ultimately failed in their grand designs only gives proof to the idea that the Aryan race deserves to die out. Christianity is too strong.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  200. @Adûnâi

    What did you ignore your own wikipedia article?

    The practice and application of foot binding varied, with the more severe forms of binding possibly having developed in the 16th century. It has been estimated that by the 19th century, 40–50% of all Chinese women may have had bound feet, rising to almost 100% in upper-class Chinese women.

    So no they didn’t survive for millennia with foot binding. It was an upper class fad and then later became popular with the mainstream in the 19th century.

    The USSR under Stalin went from a country that had just lost 20 million people in the most brutal civil war to being victorious in a grueling 4-year-long total war of extermination against all of Europe under a 90-million-strong Germany, to acquiring atomic weapons and sending a man into space.

    You forgot to mention starving 6 to 8 million to death plus killing over a million in the gulags.

    They acquired nukes through spies and sent a man into space based on Nazi research.

    But the big picture you are missing is that Europeans could see that Communism was a failure after WW2. Not a single Soviet state including Russia would have voted to keep Marxism going. By the 50s the USSR had scaled well back on collectivism because it was such a failure. They weren’t even able to feed themselves without grain imports. The Chinese however totally ignored Western economists and decided to have their own revolution which also failed.

    Mao Zedong ended the century of humiliation.

    So humiliating Chinese intellectuals doesn’t count? Torturing teachers and screaming at them with Mao’s little red book? Are you really going to defend that insanity?

    His revolution failed by his own standards. China is just a one party capitalist state and doesn’t give a damn about workers. They have slave factories that build electronics for Americans using desperate rural workers. You could be sent off to the Gulag for posting here and here you are defending Mao which helped create the monster.

    The fact that such giants of action as Stalin and Hitler ultimately failed in their grand designs only gives proof to the idea that the Aryan race deserves to die out. Christianity is too strong.

    Atheist Whites rarely bother breeding. Pointing the finger at Christianity might make you feel smug but the data shows that secularism turns Whites left. Sweden is majority secular and you can go to jail there for being “racially divisive” online even if what you post is 100% true.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  201. @dfordoom

    The problem for White Nationalism and the dissident right is these movements attract very low-quality sociopaths. If you look at very successful political movements (such as neoconservatism) you’ll find that they attract sociopaths of much higher quality.

    What the heck are you talking about? Did you watch the Democrat debates? Never seen such a line up of low quality candidates. The media could never agree on a favorite because they were all so awful. Sociopaths are probably avoiding politics altogether and going into law or finance.

  202. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Thus, you could say that Alex’s mistake was that he wasn’t sociopathic enough. But then, not everyone can be a Hitler.

    ‘Sociopath’ has moral meaning and medical/clinical meaning.

    Alex is a clinical sociopath who acts crazy on his own.

    Most moral sociopaths aren’t clinically deranged, but their ambition drives them to areas of power that are intrinsically(necessarily) and systemically amoral. If you work for the CIA, you have to be morally sociopathic on grounds of ‘us vs them’.

    It’s like murderers and soldiers both slaughter people, even innocent civilians. But murderers do it on their own whereas soldiers do it on orders.

    Granted, extreme situations can unleash the repressed Id of mass orgy of bloodbath even among those who aren’t clinically sociopathic. Thus, Nanking massacre and other craziness.

  203. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    > “The story of the Rohm [sic] purge is not Hitler calculatingly betraying Rohm [sic], but Rohm [sic] betraying Hitler, who hesitated to believe the worst of Rohm [sic] until it was almost too late.”

    I see what you are doing, Trevor – you are trying to turn the Führer into a crucified rabbi. You leave me no choice but to summon Incitatus.

    © Incitatus, 2019-12-05
    https://www.unz.com/article/what-happened-to-jews-sent-to-the-aktion-reinhardt-camps/#comment-3594045

    – Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and wife (shot dead in their foyer)
    – Herbert von Bose (von Papen’s press chief; shot ten times in the back);
    – Generalmajor Ferdinand von Bredow (shot in the face opening his door);
    – Catholic journalist Fritz Gerlich (murdered at Dauchau);
    – Conservative lawyer Edgar Julius Jung (shot, dumped in an Oranienburg ditch);
    – Catholic politician and Papen associate Erich Klausener (shot by the SS);
    – Catholic youth leader Adalbert Probst (abducted, “shot while trying to escape”);
    – Gustav Ritter von Kahr (former Bavarian commissioner who suppressed the Nov ’33 Putsch; hacked to death with pickaxes in a wood outside of Munich);
    – Karl-Günther Heimsoth physician, activist, knew Röhm (knew too many secrets, shot by Berlin SS Jul ‘34
    […]
    Ballerstedt retired from politics 1925, no threat to the NSDAP. Yet he was arrested by SS 30 Jun ’34, killed near or in Dauchau, body found 1 Jul ’34 in forest near Gündinger Neuhimmelreich shot in the back of the head;

  204. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    > “It was an upper class fad and then later became popular with the mainstream in the 19th century.”

    What is your point? The upper class is often all that matters for society. The European élite has chosen to worship Jesus, for example. It’s a decent litmus test. I’m not denying that often times, the popular masses would better rise up and start a new cycle – just like with Communism in Russia, China, Korea.

    Do I need to remind you that it was the Russian Communists who overthrew the traitorous February régime, preserved Russia and finally defeated the Whites who were Western lapdogs, ready to dismember Russia for a victory in the Civil War?

    [MORE]

    > “His revolution failed by his own standards. China is just a one party capitalist state and doesn’t give a damn about workers.”

    That is a great point – China seems to be efficient at picking and choosing the best practice. Foot-binding – tried, discontinued. Maoism – tried, discontinued. Unlike the Aryans – tried that BJC (Big Jewsus Cock), and the rest of history. They are history. A history of stupidity.

    > “You forgot to mention starving 6 to 8 million to death plus killing over a million in the gulags.”

    Most of GULAG deaths occurred in 1941-45. Do I have to tell you what was happening in those years? The World War. The entire country was starving, often to death.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

    According to Nicolas Werth, the yearly mortality rate in the Soviet concentration camps strongly varied, reaching 5% (1933) and 20% (1942–1943) but dropping considerably in the post-war years (about 1 to 3% per year at the beginning of the 1950s).

    > “You forgot to mention starving 6 to 8 million to death plus killing over a million in the gulags.”

    Where did you get the starvation figure from I have no idea about. There were famines, but you cynically diminish human suffering when you pull obscene figures out of your ass. The Holodomor is a Goebbelsian lie. Ukraine has lost 10 (ten) times as many people since 1991, and nobody in America is squealing about that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine

    > “Sweden is majority secular and you can go to jail there for being “racially divisive” online even if what you post is 100% true.”

    There is nothing atheist about secular Christianity. An atheist will not let his women get fucked by Negroes. An atheist will not subscribe to the irrational idea of the pursuit of happiness by separate individuals to the detriment of the population. Liberalism is but a logical conclusion of Judaism and Christianity. America is clearly the centre of cultural dialectic, and you will see progress there – that there are queer patches of traditional religion is irrelevant.
    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/red-giant/

    It was the foreign Jewish god who told Whites to cut off their dicks.

    Matthew 19:12:

    For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

    Matthew 10:35:

    For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

    The Chinese/Korean historians of the future will laugh their asses off.

  205. @Hapalong Cassidy

    Paul Craig Roberts comes across as insouciant to his readers feelings.

  206. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    The tendency of sociopaths to flourish in our current system is an argument to change the system not an argument to compete to have better sociopaths in charge of our movement.

    If you don’t want sociopaths in charge you’d have to abandon democracy. Democracy is a system by which we choose the most superficially attractive from among a selection of sociopaths.

    But even abandoning democracy won’t necessarily help all that much. Even in non-democratic systems sociopaths rise to the top because all political systems are about power. And sociopaths are attracted to power and they’re very good at playing political power games. Napoleon, Stalin and Pol Pot being examples of sociopaths rising to the top in non-democratic systems.

    The only systems which are relatively immune to such problems are monarchies (real monarchies, not fake constitutional monarchies) and bureaucratic oligarchies.

    The White Nationalist movement needs to weed out sociopathic types.

    How do you propose to do that? It’s an ideology that attracts sociopaths the way honey attracts bees. If you want to weed out the sociopaths you’d need to make White Nationalism a less sociopathic ideology.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  207. @Trevor Lynch

    Alex… is brutal and high-handed, which leads immediately to the rest of the gang betraying him and leaving him to the police. In short, he’s a lousy leader, and his gang are lousy followers, because sociopaths lack fellow feeling, which makes it impossible for them to feel loyalty and solidarity and difficult for them to understand one another.

    Leadership qualities vary from context to context. You see this among animals. Certain species are more aggressive and predatory, like wolves and hyenas. To be a leader among those animals requires more forcefulness and brutality than to be a leader among sheep or prairie dogs.

    If you’re a leader of a church with mostly nice people, you won’t have to be high-handed because most of the flock are decent and trusting. But if you’re the leader of a street gang, you need street cred. You must show you are tough and don’t take shit from anyone. Alex is a leader of wolves or hyenas. They are social predators, and he must always show he’s tougher and smarter than others. If he’s seen as weak, another will try to take over as alpha. Of course, if he is too rough with the others, they could turn on him… which is what they do.
    This was Trotsky’s problem. In some ways, he had remarkable leadership skills, and many looked up to him. He was tough and ruthless, absolutely necessary traits among radicals. But he was also supremely arrogant and insulting, and this made many choose Stalin over him. Stalin was also a mean son of a bitch who was often rule, but he could also be diplomatic and outwardly conciliatory(while plotting for future battles).

    In ACO, it seems the droogs stuck by Alex for sometime. They didn’t immediately turn against him but finally reached a point where they decided to stick it to him.
    In the world of thuggery, Alex has to walk a fine line between not appearing weak and not being insufferable. It’s an unstable relationship as ‘honor among thieves’ usually is. Sociopaths or thugs trying to trust and support one another.
    But such balance is found in many walks of life. Most politicians are untrustworthy as most of them will usually go with the strong horse and routinely stab anyone in the back to save their own skin or to further their own career. Or the business world. The underling in HIGH AND LOW turn on his boss and go with the rivals who seem to have the upper hand. Pachanga turns on his friend in CARLITO’S WAY. In those cases, the underlings thought the boss had gone soft and lost the edge.

    In other cases, betrayal is about revenge, like when Carlo did a number on Sonny who beat him up. And Fredo, long humiliated by Michael, conspired with Roth and Johnny Ola. Carlo found Sonny overbearing, and Fredo resented the younger brother bossing him around. In contrast, Sal betrayed the family in part one because he thought the Corleones were on the decline and Barzini was the strong horse to bet on.

    Donald Trump sure found out there’s almost no one you can trust in the world of politics inhabited by the likes of Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Mitt Romney. Not murderous sociopaths but careerist ones who will do anything to save their own skin or play the game. Granted, Trump himself isn’t trustworthy. (But then, even Peter denied Jesus three times.)

    There was a successful coup against Mussolini. There was a plot against Hitler that came close to killing him. There are rumors that Stalin was finally killed by his own men who poisoned him. Whether it’s Alex playing war in the streets or big leaders playing war among nations, such extreme games of ambition and violence are never stable in terms of loyalty and trust.

    [MORE]

    Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him.

    Obviously, Hitler and Alex are different creatures. For one thing, Hitler came to power in his middle age. He was ‘wiser’ by then. Alex is still young and drive by crazy hormones. What they do have in common is a bohemian(artistic) streak and love for classical music. Hitler was crazy about Wagner, Alex is crazy about Beethoven. The difference is Hitler came of age in a more sentimental and romantic era, whereas Alex is very much the creature of post-modern irony and vapid youth culture. Had Hitler been born in the 60s, maybe he would have taken up punk music. It’s hard to say. The skinheads in AMERICAN HISTORY X are pretty demented and degenerate.

    Difference between Hitler and Alex is the latter loves violence for violence’s sake whereas violence was a means for Hitler(though he found plenty of excitement in playing war games with the lives of millions). A combo of Hitler and Alex would be the David android in ALIEN COVENANT. Like Hitler, he has grand vision and a mythic sense of destiny; but like Alex, he revels in violence for violence’s sake and feels nothing for the all the dead.

    A key difference between Alex and Hitler is the former’s lack of sentimentality. Hitler could be very sentimental and feel strong fondness and attachment to things. Alex seems to mock everything(except Beethoven, his god whose music is to art what Napoleon was to history). Julius Streicher was also sentimental. He wept over his dead canaries. He was an animal lover, as was Hitler. And yet, their feelings were narrowly restricted to certain people, things, and themes.
    For certain others, they not only felt indifferent but contempt and hatred on the pathological level.
    This is not uncommon among white supremacist types. Their love for their own race is genuine and true. But their disdain, derision, and hatred for outside groups can be extreme, indeed as if this compulsive need to dump on the Other.
    Now, it’s natural for most people to favor their own over others. It’s like people favoring one’s own family. Still, loving one’s family doesn’t mean one should hate other families or not acknowledge their equal value as human beings. So, even though I probably won’t be emotionally moved by the death of some neighbor I know little about, I would still understand that it’s a tragedy and people who loved him are filled with grief. I wouldn’t feel sad but understand it’s a sad thing that someone died and painful for those who loved him.

    The problem with Hitler wasn’t his love for Germans or ‘Aryans’. Germans should love their own kind. It was his contempt for other peoples whom he deemed as lesser humans. Perhaps, he loved his own people too much. When you love your people too much, you may come to believe they deserve everything under the sun, indeed more than other peoples. (An Italian mother who loves her son too much protects from the Law even when he did something wrong and must face justice.)
    As other peoples stand in the way of your people’s rightful place-in-the-sun, they need to be wiped out or enslaved to serve your people. This was Hitler’s vision of Lebensraum. He came to power in Germany with his love for the German people, that much is true. But he later turned much of the world against him when his plan was Germany uber alles at their expense. Russians and Slavs had no meaningful place in Hitler’s grand plan. They would either be killed or enslaved.

    So, what was Hitler? A Nationalsociopath? A person who is capable of great love for his own kind but lacking in even the modicum of human feelings for outsiders or those deemed expendable. In THE GODFATHER movies, it’s obvious Michael is capable of affection and love. He loved his father. He loved his brother. He loves Apollonia and he loves Kay. But he is also capable of having a prostitute murdered in cold blood to gain control over Senator Geary. For his empire, he will sacrifice any ‘lesser human being’.

    Jews hate Hitler, but they are also big on nationalsociopathy. Just like Hitler loved Germans and ‘Aryan’s, Jews love Jews and ‘Semites’. But just like Hitler was willing to sacrifice millions of non-German lives to make room for his beloved Germans, Jews are willing to destroy countless goy lives in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and Russia just to have Jews Uber Alles.
    The fact that Jews did so much to get Jonathan Pollard sprung from jail goes to show that Jews have strong affection and love for one another. But what about all the victims of Pollard? Pollard’s betrayal led to deaths of double-agents in the USSR. Jews don’t care. Jews feel, ‘He did it for the tribe, so he’s okay’.

    So, Hitler and Jewish Supremacists have something in common. They feel real and genuine love for their own kind BUT feel zero feeling for outsiders. To Hitler, Jews and Slavs were expendable. Though he didn’t want to kill them for the hell of it, he was willing to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the Germans. Likewise, Jewish Supremacists probably don’t want to kill goy lives just for the hell of it; they are not murderous or sadistic in that way. But their main obsession is Jewish Hegemony based on tribal pride and arrogance; as such, they believe anything standing in the way of Jewish Destiny must be smashed.

    In some ways, Hitler was worse than Jewish Supremacists. Whereas Jews all work together as equals for the good of the Tribe, there was something of higher value in Hitler’s mind than German glory and interests. He was a megalomaniac who saw himself as a Man of Destiny, one of those gods/heroes of Wagnerian operas. Thus, he was bigger than the Germans, and even as he loved the Germans, they existed to serve him and his gargantuan rule in history as the epoch-making greatest conqueror and ruler of all time. In the end, Germans existed to serve him than vice versa. Germans gave him everything in the most brutal war in world history, but he felt no pity for them in the end because they failed him. In his eyes, Germans deserved to vanish as a race because they didn’t live up his expectations.

    In this, Jews have been wiser. Jewish Power is shared, and Jews are mindful of other Jews. Jewish Power is the culmination of many Jews with strong personalities and pride. In contrast, German National Socialism was about so many Germans submitting their individualities to Hitler’s megalomania.

    If a Hitler rose among Jews, other Jews would speak up and bat him down. Jews would tell the Hitlerian Jew to knock it off. They would remind him and each other that Jewishness is about Jews working together for Jewish Eternity than about a single Jew hogging the limelight as the super-Jew. It’s telling that Jews have been waiting for a messiah forever but he never came(or the Jews never accepted anyone as messiah, not even Jesus). And so, Jews keep going on and on like the energizer bunny.

  208. @Adûnâi

    What is your point? The upper class is often all that matters for society.

    We now have an upper-crass.

  209. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    Hitler, by contrast, built a movement that grew into millions and inspired fanatical loyalty, in large part because he was highly empathetic: he cared about people, understood people, and made people feel visible and understood by him.

    You do realise that nobody in all of history ever did more harm to white nationalism than Adolf Hitler? Hitler permanently discredited nationalism in Europe. He permanently discredited eugenics. He permanently discredited policies based of notions of racial superiority.

    Hitler destroyed any chance that White Nationalism might ever have had. Hitler is the reason that White Nationalists are a tiny, marginalised, despised minority group.

    And the fact that there are White Nationalists prepared to express admiration for Hitler ensures that White Nationalism will never make any progress.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
    , @Adûnâi
  210. dfordoom: “Hitler destroyed any chance that White Nationalism might ever have had. Hitler is the reason that White Nationalists are a tiny, marginalised, despised minority group.”

    You’re making an interesting point here, though perhaps it’s not one you mean to make. Hitler differs from Breivik or Dylann Roof in scale, in directions both positive and negative. Yet Lynch considers only the latter two toxic because of the public reaction to their deeds, and not Hitler, whose actions resulted in far more devastating PR damage.

    Still, Hitler was enormously successful for a time. One of the advantages of having such a flexible definition of sociopathy is that success and money can instantly cure you. I’m willing to bet that if a Bill Gates or even a George Soros suddenly were to write a big check to “White Nationalism”, he’d no longer be denounced as a sociopath by its adherents.

    dfordoom: “Hitler permanently discredited nationalism in Europe. He permanently discredited eugenics. He permanently discredited policies based of notions of racial superiority.”

    I see nationalism as a relic of the industrial age, something that would have passed anyway as the technological system grew to global proportions. Hitler damages contemporary white racism by sidetracking white racists into trying to duplicate his successes, which were necessarily restricted to his time and place. As for him “discrediting” eugenics and notions of racial superiority, you can’t discredit facts. It’s simply a fact that genetics plays a large part in behavior, and that races exist. What public policies develop from that is a separate question. Transhumanists like Klaus Schwab certainly don’t consider the genetic re-engineering of humanity off-limits.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @John Johnson
  211. @dfordoom

    [White Nationalism] is an ideology that attracts sociopaths the way honey attracts bees. If you want to weed out the sociopaths you’d need to make White Nationalism a less sociopathic ideology.

    White Nationalism is a collectivist and identitarian ideology. It is based on individual identification with his race and nation and a willingness to sacrifice for them. At core, that means that it is an ideology that should repel sociopaths, who feel no connection to others and are ruthlessly egoistic.

    This does not mean that sociopathic trash is not attracted to our movement. But a large part of the reason they are is enemy propaganda, which portrays White Nationalism as a playground for sociopaths.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  212. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Hitler damages contemporary white racism by sidetracking white racists into trying to duplicate his successes, which were necessarily restricted to his time and place. As for him “discrediting” eugenics and notions of racial superiority, you can’t discredit facts.

    Of course you can discredit facts. Facts don’t matter at all. Truth doesn’t matter at all. Facts and truth are irrelevant to politics and always have been.

    What matters is not what is true, but what people believe. Thanks to Hitler eugenics will always be regarded with fear and suspicion and policies based explicitly on notions of racial superiority will always be off limits in the West.

    I see nationalism as a relic of the industrial age, something that would have passed anyway as the technological system grew to global proportions.

    In some ways it’s a good thing that Hitler discredited nationalism. Nationalism needed to be consigned to the scrap heap. It’s also not entirely a bad thing that Hitler discredited eugenics and policies based explicitly on notions of racial superiority.

    But is is bizarre to see White Nationalists expressing admiration for the man who ensured that their political ideology would remain marginal and irrelevant.

  213. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    White Nationalism is a collectivist and identitarian ideology. It is based on individual identification with his race and nation and a willingness to sacrifice for them. At core, that means that it is an ideology that should repel sociopaths, who feel no connection to others and are ruthlessly egoistic.

    White Nationalism attracts a lot of people who would prefer to look for scapegoats rather than facing the reasons for their own personal inadequacies and failures. It’s an ideology of resentment. White Nationalism is all about blaming others. That appeals to unsuccessful loser sociopaths who want someone to blame.

    Which is why I can imagine Alex becoming a White Nationalist. Alex is an unsuccessful sociopath.

    There are successful sociopaths and unsuccessful sociopaths.

    • Replies: @Trevor Lynch
  214. @dfordoom

    White Nationalism attracts a lot of people who would prefer to look for scapegoats rather than facing the reasons for their own personal inadequacies and failures. It’s an ideology of resentment. White Nationalism is all about blaming others. That appeals to unsuccessful loser sociopaths who want someone to blame.

    Pure ADL/SPLC boilerplate.

    Nice try.

  215. @dfordoom

    Hitler permanently discredited nationalism in Europe. He permanently discredited eugenics. He permanently discredited policies based of notions of racial superiority.

    Hitler destroyed any chance that White Nationalism might ever have had. Hitler is the reason that White Nationalists are a tiny, marginalised, despised minority group.

    And the fact that there are White Nationalists prepared to express admiration for Hitler ensures that White Nationalism will never make any progress.

    Don’t be so smug. Nothing is permanent in human affairs. Your predictions are premised on the permanence of the post-WWII Allied/Jewish consensus. It amounts to the tautological statement that White Nationalism will not win as long as its enemies remain in power. No kidding. The whole point of our movement is to overthrow them. Your shopworn ADL/SPLC talking points are failing miserably to contain the rise of white identity politics.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  216. dfordoom: “Facts don’t matter at all. ”

    Oh, but they do. They have consequences. Should the Chinese, for example, start to improve the IQ of their populace via eugenics, the West would have no choice but to respond. Or, take any problem at all: “global warming”, pollution of the oceans, the ongoing mass extinction of species, acid rain, resource depletion, “peak oil”, ozone holes, etc. ad infinitum. Propaganda campaigns can attempt to discredit them as problems, but to the extent that they are real, all have practical consequences that can’t be ignored.

    Messengers can be “discredited”, but the underlying facts are not eliminated.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  217. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    As for him “discrediting” eugenics and notions of racial superiority, you can’t discredit facts. It’s simply a fact that genetics plays a large part in behavior, and that races exist.

    You can discredit facts through political power and that is exactly what happened.

    The social sciences went left before the war was even over. California was a leader in eugenics but then switched to race not existing and blaming Whites for everything.

    Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the rational right. After WW2 it was Christian right vs Secular (but not really) left.

    He was never a White or German nationalist. He knew full well what would happen to Germans if the USSR crossed the border. If he cared about Germans he would have surrendered much earlier to the allies. He was actually diverting resources late in the war to kill Hungarian Jews rather than save Germans.

    Hitler was a warmonger and would have happily killed under any flag. He was just a Genghis Khan and German nationalism was his excuse.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Adûnâi
  218. @Adûnâi

    The European élite has chosen to worship Jesus, for example.

    No they only pretend to worship Jesus during the holidays and many don’t even bother with that anymore. They bow to globalism and money.

    Do I need to remind you that it was the Russian Communists who overthrew the traitorous February régime, preserved Russia and finally defeated the Whites who were Western lapdogs, ready to dismember Russia for a victory in the Civil War?

    The Bolsheviks defeated everyone including leftists that they promised a hand in a new republic. Then they sent off their own allies to Gulags along with conservatives, nationalists, centrists and completely innocent people that wanted nothing to do with politics. Then came the great purge and the holodomor. All for what? Like I pointed out (which you didn’t deny) the USSR never managed to live without grain imports. The whole thing was a failure. If the Whites would have won Russia would be far more advanced today and millions wouldn’t have died because of Marxist fantasy. And here you are defending that madness even though modern Russia has disavowed it.

    There is nothing atheist about secular Christianity. An atheist will not let his women get fucked by Negroes. An atheist will not subscribe to the irrational idea of the pursuit of happiness by separate individuals to the detriment of the population.

    Ah the True Scotsman argument. Point out how atheists lean left and have few children….oh well they aren’t true atheists! How convenient. So White Christians are the problem even though atheists have fewer children but they aren’t the problem because they aren’t true atheists. Fascinating logic.

    Anyways you are free to join an atheist meet up and tell them how they are actually Christian. They will unanimously vote you to be insane. Who are you to say otherwise? Are you going to defer to a moral authority?

    It was the foreign Jewish god who told Whites to cut off their dicks.

    Be sure to bring that up with the atheists. Talk about how they are actually Christian and then ask if they are circumcised. Be sure to include those bible versus. Report the results back to us please.

  219. John Johnson: “You can discredit facts through political power …”

    If someone shoots and kills you, you are still dead even if the fact you were shot and killed is “discredited”.

    John Johnson: “Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the rational right.”

    Nonsense. That view of the matter is a cope that allows whites to exculpate themselves for their own irrationality. Nobody forced them to oppose the cause of their own racial superiority, or eugenics. Even today, no one is forcing them. They do it because of the cultural influence of Christianity.

    John Johnson: “After WW2 it was Christian right vs Secular (but not really) left. ”

    The Christian religion is inherently universalist and revolutionary and hence, anti-racist. There is no Christian right in the racial sense, and there never was.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  220. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    dfordoom: “Facts don’t matter at all. ”

    Oh, but they do. They have consequences. Should the Chinese, for example, start to improve the IQ of their populace via eugenics, the West would have no choice but to respond.

    In which case the West would have to admit that the establishment has been lying and has spent over a trillion (public plus private) on blank slate fantasy programs.

    So facts really don’t matter if you can spend a trillion on fantasy while punishing people that ask critical questions about race and behavior.

    You can say that such facts will eventually make themselves known but that isn’t much consolation to someone that lost their wife or child to an angry Bantu because the government chose fantasy over reality.

    Scientists in the USSR were sent off to Gulags for not believing in Lysenko genetics and the facts certainly didn’t save them from being worked to death.

    In sum you are both right. Facts do matter but governments can be powerful enough to where they don’t.

  221. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    John Johnson: “Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the rational right.”

    Nonsense. That view of the matter is a cope that allows whites to exculpate themselves for their own irrationality.

    That is a view that Whites use to cope? That is my own opinion and I have never seen it shared by anyone.

    The US/European right was willing to talk about race before WW2. After WW2 it became taboo and anyone that talked about race was called a Nazi.

    Nobody forced them to oppose the cause of their own racial superiority, or eugenics. Even today, no one is forcing them. They do it because of the cultural influence of Christianity.

    Yes it is true that no one was forced to abandon the study of racial genetics or allow Marxists to take over the social sciences. White people are obviously guilt prone and should not have allowed WW2 to radically influence their policies. But that doesn’t let Hitler off the hook. He wrote about how he could be as unprincipled as he wanted since he would win and history wouldn’t be able to judge him. Well that obviously didn’t happen. All he had to do was stay in his 1939 borders and the left would have been doomed. They were already in trouble due to anthropological evidence that race was tied to culture. After WW2 the Boas side won the argument even though they hadn’t added anything new. It was all thanks to Hitler needlessly starting a war in Western Europe.

    But more importantly there is a huge problem with blaming Christianity which is that the de-Christianization of the West has furthered the embrace of race denial and blaming Whites for inequality. The most secular countries in Europe are also the most hostile to studying race. The Universities are secular and have embraced race denial more than the churches. If you give a talk on race at a University that is outside the scope of race not existing you will get death threats. If the University gets notified that you are one of them the talk will be cancelled regardless of merit. Universities are supposed to be havens for free speech but that is obviously not the case. So I find it irrational to blame Christianity when its removal has only fueled the left. The left is in fact aware of this and why they actively target Christianity over Islam and Judaism. It’s viewed as the White religion and Whites that are secular are far more likely to go left.

  222. ivan says:
    @RJ Macready

    I saw his 2001 Space Odessey and thought it was crap. Apparently the deep message of the chimps throwing the bone into the sky is that it eventually led to the space program. A movie with no redemptive value except as masturbatory self reflection for those in the “know”. I read only one book of Burgess’s : It was named either Earthly (or Heavenly) Powers. Maybe the critics thought it was Britain’s answer Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow. But a riffer like Stanley Elkins he ain’t. Utter waste of time.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  223. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Trevor Lynch

    The whole point of our movement is to overthrow them. Your shopworn ADL/SPLC talking points are failing miserably to contain the rise of white identity politics.

    The only people who take white identity politics seriously are people like the ADL/SPLC, and a handful of true believers.

    White identity politics has been a failure because it’s based on the mistaken idea that white people have a “white identity” – they don’t. White identity is hopelessly vague and artificial. White people are so bitterly and hopelessly divided on ideological and cultural and class lines that there is no chance of uniting them on the basis of race.

    White people will always put class and ideological interests ahead of racial identity.

    White people as a racial group simply do not have common interests.

    If you want to overthrow the current system you won’t do it by appealing to an entirely mythical white racial identity.

    • Replies: @Polistra
  224. dfordoom says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    You can discredit facts through political power and that is exactly what happened.

    Yes, precisely. And that has happened throughout history. If you have the political power you can persuade people to believe whatever you want them to believe, no matter how crazy those beliefs might be.

    It’s also worth pointing out that many facts, when closely examined, turn out to be mere opinions anyway. We all believe that our opinions are facts but mostly we’re wrong.

  225. gnbRC says:
    @Joe Paluka

    … What demented person’s have been “urging” the author to review it? Do they need somebody else’s approval before they watch it? I never understood these type of people who make degenerate movies like this and those by Quentin Terantino into movie classics. …

    1. Comparative check on one’s own thinking process but soliciting the opinion of respected others.

    2. To overcome psychological conditioning (arbitrary judgment) that prevents one from experiencing one’s existence, so the mind doesn’t collapse into itself (become insane) and so develop resiliency when confronted with terror/trauma, (e.g. common traumatising reaction to the violence of war).

    3. Hopefully come to the realization that external sensory perceptions are destructive and thus follow a path toward more experiential stillness.

    … all ‘highbrow’ aside, was Kubrick or Burgess the [Jonathan] ‘Swiftian’, and did either study this and integrate this philosophy into their works, or is ‘Swiftian’ just a ‘highbrow’ label? Why wouldn’t Burgess be a ‘Burgessian’ or Kubrick a ‘Kubrickian’?

  226. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @dfordoom

    > “Hitler permanently discredited nationalism in Europe.”

    Define nationalism.
    1. German nationalism died with Germany.
    2. Russian nationalism is alive and well.
    3. Ukrainian nationalism is force-fed through the anus by American Russophobes.
    4. Polish/Hungarian nationalism exists, but is counter-productive because Europeans would better unite against gays and Muslims.
    5. American civic nationalism is strong as never before, with constant aggression against Asia.

    > “He permanently discredited policies based of notions of racial superiority.”

    Whites want to die – and you blame Hitler for it? In what way could the Holocaust have scared such Whites that did not want to die in the first place?

    By default, Hitler would have been admired by Europeans. He is tacitly admired by Russians even now – and Russians are the only nation with reasons to hate Hitler! Hitler is only hated by American Christians.

    > “He permanently discredited eugenics.”

    Not among Asians. And you are missing the point that the trajectory before Hitler had been the same – the Führer merely accelerated the decline with his defeat. The odds are great, but a faster withering might even be favourable to Aryan survival. And as Joseph Walsh once said, now, Europeans will either apostasise from Christianity, or perish.

  227. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    > “He was never a White or German nationalist. He knew full well what would happen to Germans if the USSR crossed the border. If he cared about Germans he would have surrendered much earlier to the allies.”

    This is the single most important issue. The battle waged is for the Aryan soul. It is a culture war. The centre of Christianity is in America and England. Taking this view, I would posit the German war against Russia as short-sighted. Therefore, I will say that the correct course of action must have been a road towards unification with Russia to try to revitalise them with the German spirit. In short, either:

    1) a pact with Russia in 1940;
    2) a successful Communist Revolution in Germany in 1919;
    3) surrendering to Stalin in 1944.

    Yes, a German victory in 1942 would have been the best for the race, but an American triumph is the worst case. And Russia apparently cannot win on its own.

  228. John Johnson: “That is a view that Whites use to cope? That is my own opinion and I have never seen it shared by anyone.”

    “The devil made me do it!” is a Christian cope, yes. Yours is just a rephrase of the idea with Hitler standing in for the devil. It’s not unique to you; I’ve seen it used many times. But Hitler is dead and can’t make anyone do anything. They’re doing it on their own.

    John Johnson: “So I find it irrational to blame Christianity when its removal has only fueled the left. ”

    As I said, Christianity, with its denial of the importance of race and its egalitarianism, is already left. It’s a revolutionary creed and a death cult that caused the collapse of classical civilization in the West, and is now threatening a repeat performance. Its influence on the culture has been so profound that even atheists like Dawkins and Carrier unquestioningly accept its moral framework.

    John Johnson: “If you give a talk on race at a University that is outside the scope of race not existing you will get death threats.”

    Whites show they agree with this by going along with it. If they won’t fight back or pay the price freedom demands, then it must not be very important to them. Being a law-abiding, cop-worshiping sheep is more important for the average American white. It’s possible a few will become indignant enough to send a little money to Countercurrents or American Renaissance, and that will make the grifters that make their living off them happy. But please, whatever you do … just don’t call him a racist or a sociopath! LOL.

    John Johnson: “It was all thanks to Hitler needlessly starting a war in Western Europe.”

    White American Christians had already previously expressed their enthusiasm for race denial eighty years before, when they fought a civil war to free the negro and make him a citizen equal to themselves. WWII was only a replay of the same fratricidal Christian madness.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @Adûnâi
  229. dfordoom: “If you have the political power you can persuade people to believe whatever you want them to believe, no matter how crazy those beliefs might be.”

    But only if they decide to cooperate. Throughout history, many people have clung to their view of the facts even at the cost of their lives. However, this isn’t to deny that people also can willingly deny reality, and even that they often do so. For example, the entire Christian religion is based on the lie that people can come back from the dead.

    dfordoom: “It’s also worth pointing out that many facts, when closely examined, turn out to be mere opinions anyway. We all believe that our opinions are facts but mostly we’re wrong.”

    As Nietzsche said, there are no facts, only opinions. But nevertheless, as Kant established, there is an objective reality, and we can refer to facts, even though we may have trouble ascertaining precisely what they are. These facts exist independently of anyone’s opinion, or there’d be no difference between reality and dreams. Propaganda campaigns don’t cause them to cease to exist, nor do they eliminate the adverse consequences of believing falsehoods.

  230. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “The devil made me do it!” is a Christian cope, yes. Yours is just a rephrase of the idea with Hitler standing in for the devil. It’s not unique to you

    I never said anything about the devil. I maintain that Hitler was not pro-German or pro-White. Even his fans admit that at the least he didn’t care about other Europeans as seen by his willingness to bomb them. I also don’t believe he was actually pro-German given how reckless he was with German lives up until the very end. He knew full well that German women would be raped en masse by Soviets but fought on until Soviet shells were exploding around him. He could have surrendered to the allies much earlier and prevented mass rape and murder of civilians by Soviet troops.

    Operation Barbarossa is considered by many military analysts to be the biggest military blunder of all time. His own generals were against it as was his lead economist.

    Whites show they agree with this by going along with it. If they won’t fight back or pay the price freedom demands, then it must not be very important to them.

    White submission to egalitarian authority is certainly a problem but that doesn’t redeem Hitler. It was completely reckless for Hitler to gamble on world war instead of building his empire elsewhere. Britain would have shrugged if he invaded the USSR first or expanded into Africa or India.

    White American Christians had already previously expressed their enthusiasm for race denial eighty years before, when they fought a civil war to free the negro and make him a citizen equal to themselves. WWII was only a replay of the same fratricidal Christian madness.

    What you are ignoring is that Americans didn’t want to be involved in WW2 until Hitler’s NON-WHITE Ally bombed Pearl Harbor. Stalin would have taken all of Europe if the Allies didn’t open a Western front. They had correctly calculated that Hitler was doomed after Stalingrad.

    As for the civil war that was just as stupid as Barbarossa. Both Lincoln and Hitler were more interested in glory through war than doing what was best for their people.

  231. @ivan

    I saw his 2001 Space Odessey and thought it was crap. Apparently the deep message of the chimps throwing the bone into the sky is that it eventually led to the space program.

    The story is paper thin but the movie for many is sort of an affirmation of human advancement. I think it is a bit of a chore to watch.

    I’m sure some of the space scenes must have looked amazing in the theater at the time compared to everything else. The special effects still hold up well in the remaster.

    What annoys me about sci-fi writers of the 60s is that they could ignore everything happening around them. Blacks were rioting and all these Whites made movies about the future where the racial conflict just somehow goes away.

    It’s sad as to how wrong they were in their predictions. AI today is used to track dissenters online rather than guide spaceships to Jupiter.

    Yet Whites continue to make these space fantasies where they seem to think current racial problems are only temporary due to Bad Whites. It’s total delusion. Star Wars appeals to this viewpoint. Secular Whites especially *want to believe* that Bad Whites are the problem and we’ll all be zooming around in hyperspace once we vote out the conservatives.

    • Replies: @ivan
  232. John Johnson: “I never said anything about the devil.”

    It’s very clear you have an overpowering hatred of Hitler that mirrors the Christian hatred for the devil. You seem to think he has supernatural powers to make people do things. But Hitler is dead, and he isn’t making anybody do anything these days. He’s just a convenient excuse.

    John Johnson: “As for the civil war that was just as stupid as Barbarossa. ”

    Whether John Johnson thinks the Civil War was stupid or not isn’t the point. The point is it was carried out by white Christians against other white Christians, and this illustrates that Christianity is inherently anti-racist and a racially destructive death cult. Whites back then were intensely Christian, yet their Christianity didn’t help them avoid war. It didn’t foster any white racial solidarity, and in fact it did the opposite and provided the ideological justification for the war. WWII was just more motion in the same direction.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  233. Miville says:
    @Malla

    Freud never, never had the idea you accuse him of : he was first and foremost a defender of Victorian morals though no longer on idealistic principles but on social utilitarian principles, and posing psychoanalysis as a kind of indulgence selling for past indulgences to be compensated with hefty amounts of money to be given to the new priests of the (((creditor people))). Freud never believed in such absurdities as peace and harmony attainable to instinctual liberation, quite the contrary, all renouncement to sexual gratification was money by definition, and all yieldings to it cosmic debt incurrences to be repaid in kind. Freud never made any mystery that such was the essence of Judaism : the art of thriving on the non-Jews’ greater incapacity to refuse dangerous sensual gratification.

    You probably have in mind Wilhelm Reich, who on the other hand did believe that a certain form of sexual liberation would be conducive to social harmony, but only a certain form that resembled more and more with his years of personal research passing to yogic moderation in that domain.

  234. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “Its influence on the culture has been so profound that even atheists like Dawkins and Carrier unquestioningly accept its moral framework.”

    An even more hilarious aspect of rotten Christianity’s far-reaching influence is (((Lawrence Krauss))) – an atheist Jew who is openly proud of his daughter’s acceptance of homosexual faggots, who is explicitly abhorred at the idea of Jews’ murdering non-Jews and raping their women, and who unquestionably wants to help South Vietnamese farmers to survive global warming. (Other than that, his orator skills are as impressive as his groping.)

    > “John Johnson: “If you give a talk on race at a University that is outside the scope of race not existing you will get death threats.””

    He’s also positing that race-denial is leftist – but the Soviet Union always recognised biological race, and never decriminalised homosexuality. This unnatural transvestitism is a purely Christian phenomenon.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  235. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    It’s very clear you have an overpowering hatred of Hitler that mirrors the Christian hatred for the devil. You seem to think he has supernatural powers to make people do things. But Hitler is dead

    Why are you not using reply?

    Where have I indicated that Hitler had supernatural powers? I explained why I don’t think he was pro-White or pro-German. Feel free to disagree, you clearly get more emotionally involved in any of this than I do. I judge leaders of history by their actions and letting half a million German women get raped is certain not pro-German by my standards.

    In my opinion Hitler, Churchhill and FDR were all traitors to their own people.

    Whether John Johnson thinks the Civil War was stupid or not isn’t the point. The point is it was carried out by white Christians against other white Christians, and this illustrates that Christianity is inherently anti-racist and a racially destructive death cult.

    The war was started by Lincoln who was a Deist.

    A war fought mostly by Christians in itself means little. You seem to support Hitler’s war and yet most the men doing the fighting were also Christian. Hitler mocked Christianity but Germany was a Christian nation.

    Germany today is far less Christian than it was it 1939 and yet far more left-wing. So there again goes the theory that Christianity is to blame. It requires you to make this illogical argument that we need to get rid of Christianity even though Sweden and the former GDR region should be free of egalitarians and leftists. That isn’t the case now is it? There are areas of East Germany that have more atheists than any other part of of Europe. Do nationalist parties rule these areas? Nope.

    It didn’t foster any white racial solidarity

    Oh right because Hitler really did a great job of that by bombing White children into pieces.

    But keep defending that pyscho who kidnapped Aryan looking Polish children and then sent their parents off to camps. A real unifier. Hitler wasn’t even Aryan looking but believed in taking Aryan looking children and killing their parents. What a swell guy, but do keep defending him. Nothing says intelligent resistance against the establishment like defending the most hated person of all time.

  236. John Johnson: “Why are you not using reply?”

    It requires javascript, and I don’t use javascript.

    John Johnson: “Where have I indicated that Hitler had supernatural powers?”

    When you say “Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the rational right” (see #220, above), that implies supernatural powers to make people do things. Has it never occurred to you that they might do things of their own accord, for their own reasons (or lack thereof)? Evidently not. America is a Christian nation and has been crazy for a long time. That’s what makes the Civil War relevant.

    John Johnson: “I explained why I don’t think he was pro-White or pro-German.”

    Yes, you tried to sidetrack the discussion into this question, which wasn’t at issue. I never asserted he was either one.

    John Johnson: “The war was started by Lincoln who was a Deist. ”

    Lincoln’s personal religious convictions are unclear, but in his speeches he quotes the Bible like a preacher, and in his Second Inaugural definitely expresses the view that his God is actively involved in the world, so he isn’t a Deist. He was raised a Baptist by his Christian religious nut parents. His constant reference to the Bible reveals how widespread and deep Christian lunacy was in those times, and how much of a motivator for the North it was.

    John Johnson: “… Hitler really did a great job of [fostering white racial solidarity] by bombing White children into pieces.”

    In logic, this is called the tu quoque fallacy. As a defense of Christianity, it’s pathetic. Yet one constantly hears from the fools who defend Christianity as good for whites that it’s somehow conducive to white solidarity, when obviously it isn’t and never has been.

    Without veering off into the weeds too much, I’d also add that there are a hell of a lot of white people that need to be killed if whites are going to remain a distinct race. Lincoln is a prime example, as are the vast majority of Christians. The scale of the bloodletting necessary is mind-boggling. To recur to the central topic of our debate, it would certainly take a “sociopath” to do it, I think.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  237. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Adûnâi

    He’s also positing that race-denial is leftist – but the Soviet Union always recognised biological race, and never decriminalised homosexuality. This unnatural transvestitism is a purely Christian phenomenon.

    We need to recognise that most of the currently accepted political dogmas are not inherently leftist. In fact Social Justice and Wokeism are essentially right-wing ideologies – they were created and encouraged in order to distract people from the reality that the Economic Right is firmly in charge and they don’t want us to notice that.

    You can be a socialist and be pro-family, anti-feminist and be entirely opposed to the LGBTwhatever agenda. You can be a socialist and think global warming is bollocks. You can be a socialist and be firmly opposed to immigration. You can be a socialist and have all sorts of varying opinions on race.

    In fact if you’re a socialist and you support Social Justice and Wokeism then you’re a very confused deluded person.

    • Agree: ivan
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  238. ivan says:
    @John Johnson

    Speaking of race fantasies, Norman Mailer in his Fire on the Moon, his Ishmael like account of the Space Program, but a Moby Dick it ain’t – taunted the blacks that they were not capable of anything similar. Mailer a Jew identified as a white man himself. How times have changed. But I cannot confirm my recall as I read it years ago.

    About the whole sci-fi genre I think you are right. All the movies look dated. The dialogues, cliched. About the only readable sci-fi writer was Phillip K Dick, but he was a philosopher rather than a World Builder.

  239. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    It requires javascript, and I don’t use javascript.

    Why not? It isn’t a security risk. Maybe you are thinking of Java.

    When you say “Hitler singlehandedly destroyed the rational right” (see #220, above), that implies supernatural powers to make people do things. Has it never occurred to you that they might do things of their own accord, for their own reasons (or lack thereof)?

    No it’s a completely rational opinion based on how the US and European right changed after WW2.

    US and European Eugenic societies were smeared by association with the Nazis (whether or not that is fair is a separate matter) and abandoned with WW2. Those societies were the backbone of the rational right.

    Here is a basic summary even though it is obviously left leaning
    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

    This is what allowed the religious right to take over the GOP. I certainly don’t care for the religious right and in fact consider most of their efforts to be a waste of time.

    As a defense of Christianity, it’s pathetic. Yet one constantly hears from the fools who defend Christianity as good for whites that it’s somehow conducive to white solidarity, when obviously it isn’t and never has been.

    I am critical of both atheism and Christianity in the context of social utility. You can verify this in my history. I have mixed feelings on Christianity but I don’t see any improvements with atheism.

    The problem with right leaning or alt-right atheism is that it has a huge problem whereby the elimination of Christianity inevitably leads to liberalism.

    This phenomenon has happened in numerous countries and is well supported by mounds of data. It is really no different than the liberal belief that Whites are the problem when in the absence of Whites we see Blacks doing much worse. It’s an irrational rejection of history for the sake of ideology.

    So I don’t see a rational strategy in trying to blame Christianity for everything when its absence leads to liberalism. Both Marxists and alt-right atheists seek to remove Christianity from White societies. In fact you can find Marxist articles on the internet where they talk about Christianity as enemy #1 (but Islam and Judaism get a pass). The alt-right atheists need to think very carefully about which side they are actually working for.

  240. @dfordoom

    We need to recognise that most of the currently accepted political dogmas are not inherently leftist. In fact Social Justice and Wokeism are essentially right-wing ideologies – they were created and encouraged in order to distract people from the reality that the Economic Right is firmly in charge and they don’t want us to notice that.

    I wouldn’t at all describe them as right-wing. They simply split with the traditional left because they are convinced that straight White men are a bigger problem than capitalists. I think what really happened is that a lot of the boomers gave up on economic Marxism and just want to stick it to Whites out of revenge over not getting their raceless utopia.

    You can be a socialist and be pro-family, anti-feminist and be entirely opposed to the LGBTwhatever agenda. You can be a socialist and have all sorts of varying opinions on race.

    Sure but 99% of leftists can’t wrap their brains around having such a variety of opinions. Conformity goes with being a leftist.

    But with that said the new left had soundly beaten the traditional left and that has created a lot of potential populists. I think the only hope is for a populist movement that combines alt-right and trad left. If done properly it could crush the two party system. Liberalism/new left falls apart quickly when it is unable to compare itself to traditional conservatism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  241. John Johnson: “Why not? It isn’t a security risk.”

    When UR is being DDOSed, if you aren’t using javascript they ask you to turn it on and reload the page. Now why do you think that is, unless javascript is being used to disclose your real IP? But you probably have no problem with that.

    John Johnson: “No it’s a completely rational opinion based on how the US and European right changed after WW2.”

    Again, they voluntarily changed for their own reasons. They decided to change to put themselves more into conformance with deeper, preëxisting trends in their societies, as reflected in the granting of citizenship and the vote to negroes by Christian whites almost a century before. Hitler didn’t do anything to them “singlehandedly”, especially as a disembodied spirit from beyond the grave.

    John Johnson: “The problem with right leaning or alt-right atheism is that it has a huge problem whereby the elimination of Christianity inevitably leads to liberalism.”

    Christianity itself IS “liberalism”. The ideas of Christian theologian John Locke were instrumental in designing the gov’t of the USA. Locke is widely considered to be the father of liberalism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @John Johnson
  242. dfordoom says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    I wouldn’t at all describe them as right-wing.

    They’re on the side of the political establishment (more more correctly the political/bureaucratic/corporate establishment). The establishment is more neo-fascist than classically right-wing.

    Conformity goes with being a leftist.

    Conformity goes with being human unfortunately. Most people identity with an ideological tribe and then conform rigidly to the norms of that tribe.

    Sure but 99% of leftists can’t wrap their brains around having such a variety of opinions.

    That’s very true but it’s no better on the Right.

    But with that said the new left had soundly beaten the traditional left and that has created a lot of potential populists. I think the only hope is for a populist movement that combines alt-right and trad left.

    I agree with that. Unfortunately both the Old School Left and the alt-right are very small marginalised groups. The Old School Left has been pretty thoroughly purged from the mainstream “left” parties.

    But yes, any hope of a successful populist movement would have to depend on embracing both alt-right and Old School Left positions. The alt-right would have to become a lot more sane for it to be possible, and the alt-right would need to find a way to purge itself of the Hitler fanboys and the full-on Christian nutters.

    If done properly it could crush the two party system. Liberalism/new left falls apart quickly when it is unable to compare itself to traditional conservatism.

  243. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Christianity itself IS “liberalism”. The ideas of Christian theologian John Locke were instrumental in designing the gov’t of the USA.

    Liberalism is secularised Christianity.

    With Christianity you’re stuck with the universalism and the basic emotionalism. If you want rationalism and/or nationalism you have to abandon Christianity.

    Even the nutjob American Christians who worship the flag are essentially universalists. They want a global American Christian empire. Which would be very similar to a global American liberal empire.

    For anyone who values ethnic or national identity that would be a catastrophe.

    The alt-right atheists who dislike Christianity do have a point. The alt-right and Christianity are entirely incompatible.

  244. @dfordoom

    This is one of your best, and also most dfordoom-ish, comments.

  245. Polistra says:
    @mike99588

    It strains credulity to think that Burgess wrote this novel in 1960-62.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  246. Polistra says:
    @dfordoom

    White people as a racial group simply do not have common interests.

    Not even survival.

  247. Polistra says:
    @animalogic

    Many of the same issues were raised by “Natural Born Killers”

  248. @dfordoom

    Liberalism is secularised Christianity.

    Liberalism is a secularized aspect of Christianity, just like Conservatism is a goyized aspect of Judaism. Liberals take the universal aspects of Christianity while Conservatives feel closer to Old Testament God than the God of New Testament. Conservatives rely on Christianity for having transferred the Jewish God to the goyim, but their heart-and-soul is really with Old Testament God. They’d be happier as New Jews with their own covenant.

    The alt-right atheists who dislike Christianity do have a point. The alt-right and Christianity are entirely incompatible.

    Still, it all depends on how it’s used. Communism is a universal ideology, but it was used for nationalistic purposes in Vietnam and other parts of the world.
    Communists can acknowledge the universal truth of communism and pay respect to people all around the world while fixating mainly on their own national problems.
    This is also true of Christianity. Protestantism, via its sectarianism, can allow for the formulation of national churches. The problem of most national churches has been their function as mere tools of the state. The political elites recruited flunkies to do the bidding of those in power.

  249. AMERICAN ANIMALS is worthy of comparison with ACO.

    While its characters are not murderous sociopaths, it does raise the issue of where the spirit of adventure and thrill of crime intersect.

    Oddly yet naturally, the more normal guys follow the lead of the most unstable yet most inspired.

    America was conquered and settled by adventurers, some of them a bit unhinged. Wilderness served as moral cover for their violence and sometimes psychopathy. The book of the American Wild is kept securely in a library museum, and four lads are about to set it free in the spirit of adventure.

    MOUNTAIN. It’s what you call a failed art film. Nice visuals though.

    BLACKCOAT DAUGHTER is truly special.

  250. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    When UR is being DDOSed, if you aren’t using javascript they ask you to turn it on and reload the page. Now why do you think that is, unless javascript is being used to disclose your real IP? But you probably have no problem with that.

    Turning off javascript isn’t going to hide your IP.

    Again, they voluntarily changed for their own reasons. They decided to change to put themselves more into conformance with deeper, preëxisting trends in their societies, as reflected in the granting of citizenship and the vote to negroes by Christian whites almost a century before. Hitler didn’t do anything to them “singlehandedly”, especially as a disembodied spirit from beyond the grave.

    Hitler singlehandedly changed the world for the worse. The power structure of the world changed entirely and it was by his own hand. He was in complete control of Germany and could have stayed in his 1939 borders or charged the USSR first. Both outcomes would have prevented a completely needless war with Britain and the US.

    You would have to be completely deluded to think it was merely by chance that Western conservatism embraced race denial immediately after WW2. Eugenics societies were actually shutting down before 1945 because they were afraid of being associated with Nazis and they knew the war was over. Whether or not you think they should have done that is separate matter. I already provided a link that talked about how California was a leader in eugenics studies before the end of WW2. I can provide another if you would like.

    People currently are afraid of studying race less it might inspire another Hitler. I have had numerous liberals and conservatives tell me this directly. Look at how many threads on Unz turn to discussions on Hitler. Yes he made massive changes to Western society through his own influence. The proof is everywhere. JFK said that only in the future will people realize how much Hitler shaped Western society. That doesn’t mean he liked Hitler. It’s just a historical observation.

    Christianity itself IS “liberalism”. The ideas of Christian theologian John Locke were instrumental in designing the gov’t of the USA. Locke is widely considered to be the father of liberalism.

    Christianity is not liberalism.

    Liberalism holds that racial and gender inequality are artificial in nature and need to be fixed by government programs and social conditioning.

    Christianity holds that achievable equality is primarily spiritual. This is a huge difference. The founders of the US did not believe in racial inequality.

    On some level they are both religions but they have completely different plans for society regarding inequality. Christianity allows that some inequality will always exist which is why it is strongly opposed to envy. Liberals view gender and racial inequality as mainly caused by White men and entirely malleable. Within liberalism the White man is the enemy unless he is a groveling wimp or homosexual. Christianity isn’t set out to blame Whites as it holds all races to be flawed as they all contain individuals and all individuals are born as sinners.

    • Replies: @commandor
  251. @dfordoom

    Liberalism is secularised Christianity.

    If it were secularized Christianity then it would be passive. A passive secular Christianity would encourage equality when possible but allow people to choose as they please just as Christianity holds that people are ultimately responsible for their moral choices.

    Liberalism is anything but passive. It is nihilistic and will happily support a crushingly autocratic government to “fix’ racial inequality. There is no end to the means for the liberal. Look at how far they have backed away from the free speech offered by the internet. They would lock down the internet if they could and in their minds it would be “for the science”.


    With Christianity you’re stuck with the universalism and the basic emotionalism. If you want rationalism and/or nationalism you have to abandon Christianity.

    That is incongruent with history. Western societies a hundred years ago were far more rational and nationalistic while also being nearly entirely Christian. It does seem counter-intuitive but this is easy to verify.

    If anything the abandonment of Christianity has made people more emotional as liberalism becomes the replacement religion. Sweden is very secular and they send people to prison for making rational observations about race. Even the people of 1950s Britain (far more Christian) would never believe that a Western society would actually someday send people to jail for making rational observations. You can go to jail just for stating the undeniable truth that most rapes in Stockholm are committed by immigrants. You could state this at Unz and the police will show up at your door because they already have a Big Brother that monitors suspicious people (nationalists). In fact these words are already in a Swedish database and being viewed by some bureaucrat because they contain flaggable terms like Sweden, immigrants and rape. Hi Lars how is the coffee today?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  252. dfordoom says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    Liberalism is secularised Christianity.

    If it were secularized Christianity then it would be passive. A passive secular Christianity would encourage equality when possible but allow people to choose as they please just as Christianity holds that people are ultimately responsible for their moral choices.

    Historically Christianity has been anything but passive.

    Also it’s been pretty common for Christians to believe that people should not be allowed to choose as they please but should be forced to adopt Christian moral values, at gunpoint if necessary.

  253. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Polistra

    It strains credulity to think that Burgess wrote this novel in 1960-62.

    Not really. The 1950s was not the way people today tend to imagine it. It was an era of rapid social change and extreme anxiety. There were constant moral panics about juvenile delinquency and much angsting about the subject, in both Britain and the US. The Teddy Boys (the first real youth sub-culture) had created a great deal of panic in Britain in the 50s. The Teddy Boys might seem quaint today but in the 50s they seemed very violent and very scary. Razor gangs were also a thing. Graham Greene dealt with the subject in Brighton Rock as early as 1938. Alex in ACO is a direct descendant of Pinkie in Brighton Rock.

    In 1960 there was nothing startling about the idea that future youth sub-cultures might be a lot more violent than the Teddy Boys.

    There was nothing startling about the idea of a youth sub-culture having its own argot. Criminal underclasses had had their own argot for many many decades and youth sub-cultures like the Teddy Boys were picking up on the idea in the 50s.

    There was nothing startling about the idea of the Ludovico Treatment. It’s just an extension of brainwashing which had been a major obsession in the 50s.

    Burgess was picking up on ideas that were already commonplace and mainstream. He just put them together in a very clever way.

    • Replies: @Ray P
  254. commandor says:
    @John Johnson

    Please do the white race a good and kill yourself. Nobody needs you.

  255. dimples says:

    I have not watched this film and never will because it seemed very likely that it would be violent crap. Thus this review would have been the type of review I would have written if I had the literary skills. In fact it is clearly far worse than I could have imagined.

  256. Ray P says:
    @dfordoom

    Burgess got the idea for Clockwork Orange out of a trip he made to the Soviet Union. He expected to find a totalitarian police state but he had not anticipated that it would have a lot of common crime and criminals which it had. He had thought that the uniformed bullies of the communist state would have driven off all the ordinary ones. He was wrong. The book is an examination of this conundrum and apparent paradox.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  257. John Johnson: “Turning off javascript isn’t going to hide your IP.”

    Not the point at issue, which was whether turning it on enables unmasking your IP. It’s simply a fact that javascript exploits have been used for this purpose in the past. But you’re probably posting in the clear anyway, so what do you care? LOL.

    John Johnson: “You would have to be completely deluded to think it was merely by chance that Western conservatism embraced race denial immediately after WW2.”

    No, you’d have to be completely self-deluded to think that Hitler “singlehandedly” caused white people to do something they already were doing before WWII (e.g., race denial). Hitler merely offered such people an additional excuse.

    John Johnson: “Liberalism holds that racial and gender inequality are artificial in nature and need to be fixed by government programs and social conditioning.”

    Christianity says There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    – Galatians 3:28

    Every doctrine of modern political correctness can be traced back to a Christian, NT source.

    John Johnson: “On some level they are both religions …”

    It’s idiotic to call liberalism a religion. If liberalism is a religion then conservatism is also a religion, and libertarianism, and socialism, etc. Such a usage renders the word religion meaningless.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  258. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    It’s idiotic to call liberalism a religion. If liberalism is a religion then conservatism is also a religion, and libertarianism, and socialism, etc. Such a usage renders the word religion meaningless.

    Yes. What we’re talking about is belief systems. Belief systems are not the same as religions but there are overlaps and similarities. A religion is a particular type of belief system but not all belief systems are religions.

    There are secular belief systems that do work in a vaguely similar way to religions, environmentalism being the outstanding example. Environmentalism could be described in some ways as a quasi-religion but it’s not an actual religion. And there secular belief systems that are clearly quite different from religions.

    But this is UR where people like to throw around terms like communist without defining those terms and without the slightest understanding of them. There’s an extraordinary amount of woolly thinking around these parts.

    It probably is true that liberalism is what you get when Christians stop believing in God. Liberalism is secularised Christianity in the sense that most of liberalism’s bad ideas derive originally from Christianity and Christian ways of thinking still heavily influence liberalism but saying that liberalism is secularised Christianity is not the same as saying that liberalism is a religion in exactly the same way that Christianity is a religion.

    There’s also the phenomenon of cultural Christianity – people who retain many of the moral values of Christianity without being actual believing Christians. Cultural Christianity is not a religion.

    • Agree: Stephane
  259. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Ray P

    Burgess got the idea for Clockwork Orange out of a trip he made to the Soviet Union. He expected to find a totalitarian police state but he had not anticipated that it would have a lot of common crime and criminals which it had. He had thought that the uniformed bullies of the communist state would have driven off all the ordinary ones. He was wrong.

    That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

    The fact remains that all the startling ideas in the novel – fear of violent youth sub-cultures, youth sub-cultures creating their own synthetic dialect and mind control – were ideas that were already commonplace and mainstream in the late 50s.

  260. dfordoom: “It probably is true that liberalism is what you get when Christians stop believing in God.”

    It would be better to say that belief in God becomes optional. Modern liberalism is the political face both of cultural Christianity and of many believing Christians. However, classical liberalism, of which theologian John Locke is the acknowledged father, originated many of the defects of modern liberalism, as was shown most strikingly by the denial of the importance of race in the nineteenth century by the very pious Christian American whites who made negroes into equal citizens of their country and gave them the vote. Yet they were fanatic believers in God.

    dfordoom: “Cultural Christianity is not a religion. ”

    Of course not. But Christians and their sympathizers love to frame the opposition as a rival religion, because that gives them an excuse to call for a return to “real” Christianity; i.e., whatever flavor of Christianity they personally prefer. It also gives them an opportunity to whine about how they are being persecuted (like Jesus!); how their churches were “infiltrated” and “subverted”; how their opponents no longer “believe in (the real) God”. This struggle against heretics and apostates has been going on for two thousand years, and it follows a familiar formula. Channeling any discussion of Christianity’s contribution to white racial extinction down this path is designed to obscure the fact that their religion itself is, from a racial point of view, inherently, and unrepairably defective. That is the point I’ve been trying to get across to Johnson, but alas, on this his ignorance seems unconquerable.

    • Replies: @commandor
  261. commandor says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    What is your stance on southern slavery? Cannnot remember if you adressed the subject.

  262. commandor: “What is your stance on southern slavery?”

    Imagine if you took a man prisoner and raped his wife in front of him, just as Alex does in A Clockwork Orange. “Normal” people such as the reviewer would call you a “sociopath” and tell you you are “mentally ill”. Yet slavery is, in essence, no different from that, and whole societies have been based on slavery, including that of the American colonies. If life is war and its ruling principle is hate, as I maintain it is, this is to be expected. People richly enjoy inflicting sadistic torments on each other, but are loathe to admit it. There can be no better illustration than this of the relative nature of what’s considered “sociopathic”, and of the worthlessness of the distinction between “mental health” and “mental illness”. Slavery has been a constant feature of human life even into the present, though now it has become a bit more genteel and is camouflaged as wage slavery. A large proportion of the populace in colonial America were slaves, both white and black. The whites were either convicts or indentured servants, but in practice their status and function was little different from the negroes. Owing to a problem with endemic malaria, in the South negroes were more suited to the tasks at hand than whites, and so a great quantity were imported. But unfortunately, due to lascivious human nature, their mere presence made race mixing inevitable. Thus, a relationship that was born out of economic necessity promoted social and cultural mixing between the two races, and now is helping to bring about the destruction of the white race all over the world.

  263. A Clockwork Orange is Art with a capital A. It takes you on a wild ride through realms that may never be. The mind flits from one absurdity to another in a fluid ballet of violence and philosophical musing.

    Like most Art, it is meant to “inform” the human soul rather than be a true guide. It doesn’t dwell on the nature of evil, but assumes that it is inherent in man, as much a part of him as his cock. The remaining question is what to do about it.

    Per Shakespeare, “Use each man according to his desert and who should ‘scape whipping.”

    Certainly not Alex.

  264. @IvyMike

    John Lennon was almost killed by one of those booters. He also may have kicked somebody else to death while wearing them himself. Their early appearance before their world fame, could be quite rowdy.

  265. @Turk 152

    Wasn’t it the English, not Truman, who firebombed Dresden?

  266. @Marckus

    World of difference between Russia and China. Even smart people seem to live in the past about these countries. Russia is not Communist, Putin goes to Church and cared enough about Russians to stop the adoption of Russian children to Americans after a few severe abuse cases occurred. The CCP doesn’t care about the Chinese.

  267. All but the simple minded can see that Kubrick made another movie about the future, (an ultra-violent progressive society) and we are living in it now.

  268. Pheasant says:
    @Trevor Lynch

    ‘Sadly, White Nationalism teems with sociopaths. They tend to sneer at empathy and moral standards and praise violence and hate. They think that only sociopaths like them can lead us to victory.’

    You are always promoting Nietzsche and say that if White individuals would confront the fear of death then White civilisation would be saved. take your concern trolling somewhere else.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings