HenryMakow.co – Aug 30, 2023
Dog’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s
With a Danish and coffee in hand, Holly taught modern women to chase money and eat on the run.
“Heterosexuals are portrayed as prostitutes who must sell their souls in order to survive. ”
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:
1. 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?
Hmmm, I’ve long held Breakfast at Tiffany’s to be an enjoyable, whimsical drama about a lost girl ( Holly ) and a young man trying to find his way in New York – and what better way for a young struggling writer to do that than have a sexy older woman ( in this case the gorgeous actress Patricia Neal ) as his sponsor? I’d would have been happy to have that in my youth. LOL
As to homosexual undertones within the film, yes maybe they are there, but I have never perceived them. Holly looks for a rich man to marry. But what young woman does not? It hardly makes her a prostitute. After all, women are programmed to find a good strong man to support her and their children. She is not portrayed as a loose woman but one who escorts a man for the evening and goes home alone. And what red blooded young man would refuse the help of a sexy older woman to help his career?
Perhaps Mr. Makow can be criticised for over analysing the film – perhaps.
“It set the 1960s template where women were allowed to lose their minds and men were forced to rescue them.”
From my humble experience of girls/women for over 43 years, I think that practically all women need to be rescued from themselves. Beautiful as most of them are ( especially Irish colleens 🙂 ), they are emotionally driven to doing all sorts of irrational things which only a strong, loving, kind and sincere man can save them from. Thanks to deeply ingrained feminist propaganda, it didn’t always work that well for me ( and I am yet again in the throes of another relationship which features the same problems LOL ) but I keep trying. I do believe this struggle is the natural order of things and brings zest to life.
If you have all the money, you want all people to be prostitutes of some kind, OR: if you want everyone to be your bitch, you need to get all the money. Which came first, the greed or the Control Freakery?
hy
ads
In my 8:43 scenario, the rich man is the customer; it is a triangle, not a binary in reciprocity. We can be blind to the customer