The Terror and The Scarlet Pimpernel

The Terror still threatens us all. Islam and liberals seek to destroy the ruling class in the West: Christians. Robes Pierre and his thugs sought to destroy the ruling class in the West: St. Louis King of France and his followers. The lunatics dared to blame the aristocracy for all the atrocities committed by thugs. Assuming the lunatics were marginally accurate, they had no right to be vengenful.

This vengeance thing is dear to lunatic liberals; they think whites, other than them, deserve whatever nonwhites dish out. The evidence for this are the relentless excuses liberals use, as if murder and mayhem are excusable. The liberal does not admit sympathy, they just vote for those who sympathize and blame nonliberals for the violence.

The Scarlet Pimpernel is an excellent movie to watch in order to understand the degree of deceit and bravery one will need to combat another terror. Mr. Leslie Howard, WAY BACK IN 1934, deserved an Academy Award for his inspired prorate of an English fop to disguise himself. Did the liberal lunatics of Hollywood give it to him? Not a chance, considering their treasonous affection for communism.

3 thoughts on “The Terror and The Scarlet Pimpernel”

  1. Hollywood definitely doesn’t make them like they used to!
    I agree the 1930s film, “The Scarlet Pimpernel,” was a masterpiece and Leslie Howard’s representation of the Pimpernel was the work of a master actor under the guidance of a master director. In those 1930s Hollywood movies of the better sort, one commonly encounters portrayals of humanity, intelligence, civility, character, wisdom, subtlety, love, and pure heart-rending emotion such as are never, ever, ever achieved (or even sought, I’d say) in modern-day films. Truly, those great 1930s film classics are a priceless cultural/artistic treasure. Watching lots of them can be an education in itself, almost like reading lots of good classic novels—you learn the same sorts of things from them.

    Long live free Flanders!

    • Hollywood and Shakespeare
      Dear Fred and Fellow Readers,

      Fred has stated truth. We do have movies that are equally communicative, but the communication is liberal or hedonistic. So the Pimpernel is a glorious achievement in its rejection of the ideal of equality that Mr. Kalb and Mr. Auster (View From the Right) relentlessly criticize with unassailable logic as the bane of liberalism, a hedonistic religion.

      I know there is a tendency towards melodrama in our beloved older movies, but their heart is in the Right place. Should we endure Shakespearian denseness on a daily basis? No. First, Shakespeare seems to have had no political point of view. Second, his language is outdated. Yet we should read him because he has been a profound influence on many writers. And reading him is reading a segment of Western Civilization. Yet one can ignore Shakespeare completely by reading the King James Bible, or so I am told.


      • The astonishing beauty of King James is largely due to Wycliffe
        “Yet one can ignore Shakespeare completely by reading the King James Bible, or so I am told.” (—Paul Henri)

        I’m not sure what Mr. Henri meant there, but as far as beauty of language is concerned
        John Wycliffe’s translation is superior to the King James version (I happen to prefer the original spelling of the 1300s, so it reads like Chaucer—which is exactly my cup of tea—but versions with modernised spelling are available). Wycliffe has some inaccuracies—it’s maybe somewhere between five and ten percent inaccurate, but if you know more or less which spots those are, you can correct them in your mind as you go, and I wouldn’t pass up the sublimity of Wycliffe’s English dialect for the world—even if he were one-hundred-percent inaccurate I would crave it for its literary beauty. So much of the language is just stunning, breathtaking.

        Another version whose English is more beautiful than the King James is William Tyndale’s 1526 edition (again, I prefer the original spelling but versions with modernized spelling are available). (I have the exact same one pictured in the link above: “The New Testament [Tyndale was captured by English agents where he was hiding in Germany and hanged, drawn, quartered, and burned before he was able to complete more than two or three Old Testament chapters, so he only did the New and a few fragments of the Old], translated by William Tyndale, The text of the Worms edition of 1526 in original spelling, edited for the Tyndale Society by W.R. Cooper, with a preface by David Daniell”—at sixteen bucks new, in hardcover, it’s an unbelievable bargain. I paid twenty-five a few years ago, still an incredible bargain.)

        People don’t realize that King James is just an updated version of the 1500s translations, of which Tyndale’s was one of the most important, and that Tyndale’s, Miles Coverdale’s, and the others of that century were just updated versions of Wycliffe’s. By far most of the oft-praised sublimity of language in King James comes from Wycliffe via Tyndale, Coverdale, and the rest. The originators of the sublimity were Wycliffe and his grad students who helped him: the sublimity we feel as we read the magnificent cadences of King James weren’t original with the 1611 translators but are really just the effect of the strikingly beautiful fourteenth-century English dialect showing through to the present day and having its inevitable effect on our minds and hearts.

        Long live free Flanders!

Comments are closed.