In TombStone, Wyatt Earp's wife Allie Earp is depicted as a lazy ungrateful bitchy wife high and passed out from opium all the time. Wyatt Earp cheats his wife for some traveling actress.
In retrospect, the movie "classic" "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (1961) was a major salvo in the Illuminati's war on heterosexual society. We can now clearly see their goal is not "gay rights" or "equality" but making homosexuality the societal norm.
While passed off as a "romance," this movie was poison to heterosexuals. It set the 1960s template where women were allowed to lose their minds and men were forced to rescue them. From that point on, it was all about their needs.
The movie was written by Truman Capote, left, a product of a broken family who became a homosexual. Like Tennessee Williams, he was championed by our Illuminati Jewish cultural controllers. His crippled, perverted vision was held up to the goyim as the last word in sophistication.
In the movie, the heterosexual Adam and Eve are portrayed in homosexual terms. Essentially they have to navigate a gay obstacle course in order to find heterosexual love and marriage, just as we do today. For 1961, this movie is sick, sick, sick. Let me count the ways:
Holly Golightly, played by Audrey Hepburn, is a prostitute. Her appeal is strictly based on "beauty" and occasional repartee. The prostitute part is glossed over and she is portrayed as a "party girl." She is looking for some nebulous security represented by the store Tiffany's. She spends her time trolling for a rich husband. Are we supposed to believe this woman is attractive?
Her suitor, Paul Varjak, played by George Peppard, is a writer. He is also a gigolo supported by a rich older woman played by Patricia Neal as though she were still acting in The Fountainhead.
In other words, heterosexuals are prostitutes who must get used to selling their souls in order to survive. Holly and Paul both agree they would marry each other for money in a minute if they had any. "I need money and I'll do whatever it takes to get it," Holly vows.
Everything Holly does is designed to emasculate Paul. She wants him as a "friend" only. Sleeps in his arms. Whistles down a cab when he can't. Throws his "arrangement" in his face. She gives mixed signals and blows hot and cold. This became the typical neurotic behavior of modern women.
There is a sick subplot where we learn Holly is really from Texas and was married at age 14 to "Doc," a vet played by Buddy Ebsen, a man easily 40. She claims the marriage was "annulled" but obviously they had sex.
In order to make this crap palatable to heterosexuals, Holly and Paul must overcome their moral lapses and find their way to each other. But Holly is a royal pain in the ass to the end. Even after Paul dumps his gigolo gig, finds a job, and declares his love, Holly is set on going to Brazil with a rich heir. When he dumps her, she is still intent on leaving to hunt "the 50 richest men in South America." She tells Paul that she doesn't want "to belong to anyone" or to be "put in a cage." Sounds like she is in a cage of her cult's making.
"I don't know who I am," she says. She is a mental case, modeled after Capote's mother who pursued "adolescent values." (See Dan's Comment below.)
This is the homosexual-feminist message of the movie. Get used to being the Illuminati's whore. Forget about marriage and family. Women "don't know who they are" and must "find themselves." This is the way the novel ends. But in order to sell the movie to unsuspecting goyim, they tack on a romantic finale. We have 110 minutes of homosexual dysfunction; and five minutes of heterosexual romance. Paul tells her she is afraid of reality and walks away. She chases after him. Passionate kisses in the rain... Not one minute of real life.
CONCLUSION
Breakfast at Tiffany's is another reminder that Hollywood, and popular cult-ure in general, are devoted to Illuminati (satanist) social engineering. They have been subverting Western Christian culture from the get-go; and the promotion of homosexuality, which is so obviously socially destructive, is a big part of it.
The reason my generation had to "search for our identity" is because our primary identity as men and women (protectors and providers, wives and mothers) was constantly being attacked and eroded by the Illuminati. [The institution of marriage was designed to provide for women and children, so society can successfully procreate. Most gays want neither marriage nor children. Thus marriage is a distinctly heterosexual institution; it is being redefined as gay in order to destroy it. ]
In 2012, Breakfast at Tiffany's was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. Considered "iconic", it set an example for the 1960's generation. Women wanted to be Holly Golightly just as a generation later they wanted to be Carrie Bradshaw. (Sex in the City was also written by a homosexual.)
Thanks to Illuminati feminist mind control, women exchanged socially secure and honored positions as wives and mothers to raise children alone in poverty. Truly a dog's breakfast.
What?
I've never seen the movie but this doesn't make sense.
Her appeal is strictly based on "beauty" and occasional repartee.
That's exactly what men find most attractive they don't care about anything else but visuals. They may parrot 'conservative values' but they are following and liking the IG 304s.
Are we supposed to believe this woman is attractive?
Yes. Yes, she is a beauty icon because she is thin. You can never be too skinny or too rich. That is why twiggy and Kate moss were icons. That is why Kate middleton got William back after he dumped her - she became, and has stayed ana/anorexic.
Thin is beautiful. All the top women in Mayfair are super thin.
She gives mixed signals and blows hot and cold.
That is recorded as one of the best methods of seduction
Ok, if the male love interest is a THOt 304, that is pretty gross and she will never be happy with him. He is not a provider, he is a parasite.
They will end up both going back to being hoes even if they stay together.
Let's ignore all those cowboy films since the dawn of cinema where the queen whore in the saloon ends up with the local hero
Ouch. Good point.
In TombStone, Wyatt Earp's wife Allie Earp is depicted as a lazy ungrateful bitchy wife high and passed out from opium all the time. Wyatt Earp cheats his wife for some traveling actress.
Maybe. Blake Edwards, who was gay, directed it.
Here is the article:
Dog's Breakfast at Tiffany's
from June 8, 2013
by Henry Makow PhD
In retrospect, the movie "classic" "Breakfast at Tiffany's" (1961) was a major salvo in the Illuminati's war on heterosexual society. We can now clearly see their goal is not "gay rights" or "equality" but making homosexuality the societal norm.
While passed off as a "romance," this movie was poison to heterosexuals. It set the 1960s template where women were allowed to lose their minds and men were forced to rescue them. From that point on, it was all about their needs.
The movie was written by Truman Capote, left, a product of a broken family who became a homosexual. Like Tennessee Williams, he was championed by our Illuminati Jewish cultural controllers. His crippled, perverted vision was held up to the goyim as the last word in sophistication.
In the movie, the heterosexual Adam and Eve are portrayed in homosexual terms. Essentially they have to navigate a gay obstacle course in order to find heterosexual love and marriage, just as we do today. For 1961, this movie is sick, sick, sick. Let me count the ways:
Holly Golightly, played by Audrey Hepburn, is a prostitute. Her appeal is strictly based on "beauty" and occasional repartee. The prostitute part is glossed over and she is portrayed as a "party girl." She is looking for some nebulous security represented by the store Tiffany's. She spends her time trolling for a rich husband. Are we supposed to believe this woman is attractive?
Her suitor, Paul Varjak, played by George Peppard, is a writer. He is also a gigolo supported by a rich older woman played by Patricia Neal as though she were still acting in The Fountainhead.
In other words, heterosexuals are prostitutes who must get used to selling their souls in order to survive. Holly and Paul both agree they would marry each other for money in a minute if they had any. "I need money and I'll do whatever it takes to get it," Holly vows.
Everything Holly does is designed to emasculate Paul. She wants him as a "friend" only. Sleeps in his arms. Whistles down a cab when he can't. Throws his "arrangement" in his face. She gives mixed signals and blows hot and cold. This became the typical neurotic behavior of modern women.
There is a sick subplot where we learn Holly is really from Texas and was married at age 14 to "Doc," a vet played by Buddy Ebsen, a man easily 40. She claims the marriage was "annulled" but obviously they had sex.
In order to make this crap palatable to heterosexuals, Holly and Paul must overcome their moral lapses and find their way to each other. But Holly is a royal pain in the ass to the end. Even after Paul dumps his gigolo gig, finds a job, and declares his love, Holly is set on going to Brazil with a rich heir. When he dumps her, she is still intent on leaving to hunt "the 50 richest men in South America." She tells Paul that she doesn't want "to belong to anyone" or to be "put in a cage." Sounds like she is in a cage of her cult's making.
"I don't know who I am," she says. She is a mental case, modeled after Capote's mother who pursued "adolescent values." (See Dan's Comment below.)
CONCLUSION
Breakfast at Tiffany's is another reminder that Hollywood, and popular cult-ure in general, are devoted to Illuminati (satanist) social engineering. They have been subverting Western Christian culture from the get-go; and the promotion of homosexuality, which is so obviously socially destructive, is a big part of it.
The reason my generation had to "search for our identity" is because our primary identity as men and women (protectors and providers, wives and mothers) was constantly being attacked and eroded by the Illuminati. [The institution of marriage was designed to provide for women and children, so society can successfully procreate. Most gays want neither marriage nor children. Thus marriage is a distinctly heterosexual institution; it is being redefined as gay in order to destroy it. ]
In 2012, Breakfast at Tiffany's was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. Considered "iconic", it set an example for the 1960's generation. Women wanted to be Holly Golightly just as a generation later they wanted to be Carrie Bradshaw. (Sex in the City was also written by a homosexual.)
Thanks to Illuminati feminist mind control, women exchanged socially secure and honored positions as wives and mothers to raise children alone in poverty. Truly a dog's breakfast.
Why should she be giving out free sexuak favors if he doesn't have any value?? And isn't a provider man?
If he is incompetent, obviously she has to take over
No innate value, just a parasite off women and a prostitute
What? I've never seen the movie but this doesn't make sense.
That's exactly what men find most attractive they don't care about anything else but visuals. They may parrot 'conservative values' but they are following and liking the IG 304s.
Yes. Yes, she is a beauty icon because she is thin. You can never be too skinny or too rich. That is why twiggy and Kate moss were icons. That is why Kate middleton got William back after he dumped her - she became, and has stayed ana/anorexic. Thin is beautiful. All the top women in Mayfair are super thin.
Ok, if the male love interest is a THOt 304, that is pretty gross and she will never be happy with him. He is not a provider, he is a parasite.
They will end up both going back to being hoes even if they stay together.
i tried to watch this shit back in the day but it was fucking gay and retarded and got nothing from it, thought it was bullshit.
Interesting. As a zoomer yuppie, I found the movie quite relatable, but I see how it was subversive for its time.