‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ is atheist, Communist propaganda

NY Post ^ | December 24, 2015 | Kyle Smith

[presidio9]

The Christmas Eve showing of “It’s a Wonderful Life” may be intended to make you believe in the importance of even an ordinary person’s life, but underneath that, what are the film’s secret hidden messages, the ones that become apparent only after two or three eggnogs? Let’s mull over some of the wackier possibilities.

It’s a salute to atheism. It’s “the least religious but most humanist film you could ever see,” said David Wilson in The Guardian, because it suggests people should fix their problems on Earth rather than waiting for God to help out. Regarding Jimmy Stewart’s character George Bailey, Wilson notes: “Even if he does at one point pray to God, [Bailey] is not religious at all, but simply a man trying to find transcendence in the routine of his life and in his duties to his family, friends and community . . . [director] Frank Capra . . . had a lifelong apathy towards his Catholic upbringing, and

-SNIP-

It’s Commie propaganda. A 1947 memo by the FBI containing interviews with Hollywood types, which became of interest to the House Un-American Activities Committee, stated, “With regard to the picture ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, [REDACTED] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a ‘scrooge-type’ so that he would be the most hated man in the picture.” This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. The pressure eased up when a witness liked by the HUAC, ex-Communist screenwriter John Charles Moffitt, testified

-SNIP-

[Zionist Conspirator]

I never meant that Capra sent money to Franco, nor was I condemning support of Franco. I simply heard somewhere that Capra "supported" Franco. Many Catholics did, and someone who did so does not sound apathetic towards his Catholic upbringing.

The accusation that Capra made IAWL to promote Communism just doesn't ring true. And he certainly was not pro-Fascist considering the anti-Fascist themes of so many of his films and the fact that he directed the "Why We Fight" series of films.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture”

Huhhh?

The central theme of the movie shows George Bailey as a banker who did great things for people.

[HereInTheHeartland]

Are two people really spending time arguing about if angels have belly buttons!!!??!!

Too funny!

A robust discussion of which came first; the chicken or the egg would be in order for the next topic.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “when did “Catholic art” begin?” <<

Sometime after Constantine invented the catholic church.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You deny the word of God.

It plainly describes the angels with bodies.

[presidio9]

Taking another look at this signature, it only occurred to me just now that Michelangelo signed this upside down. The conventional way to write this would have been with the letters "MICHAELA[N]GELUS BONAROTUS FLORENTIN[US] FACIEBA[T]" ("Michelangelo Buonarroti of Florence carved this") beginning on Mary's right shoulder and proceeding down. Instead, they begin at her abdomen.

There is an interesting story behind the signature: The work was commissioned by a French Cardinal for his tomb. The requirements was "to create the most beautiful work of marble in Rome, one that no living artist could better." Naturally, most established sculptors balked at this. Michelangelo was then a 22 year-old unknown. He accepted the challenge, and completed the statue in two years. When it was installed in the (since demolished) Chapel of Santa Petronilla at the Vatican, the story goes that huge crowds formed around it (there was no television or internet at that time to distract people from things that matter). Being a vain artist, Michelangelo visited these crowds from time to time, and supposedly heard people wondering which of the great establishment artists at that time must have sculpted it. Supposedly someone remarked that it must have been Cristoforo Solari, and this insulted Michelangelo. Most likely you have never heard of Solari. He was an excellent artist, but no Michelangelo. No one was, and no one ever will be.

So, Michelangelo broke into Chapel late that night and signed his name. Back to that signature: I never thought about this before until just now, but the reason why he signed it upside down is because the sash was already there on the completed statue, and he was left handed. Holding the chisel with his right hand and working from the top down would have been more difficult for him. Of course, he could have written the letters backwards. But he was in a hurry, and working at night. I don't think he gave the matter a lot of thought. Just my conjecture mind you.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I never make assumptions. The reality is all I need.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

[presidio9]

"The Dead Christ," by Cristoforo Solari (Milan, 1460–1527)

[presidio9]

[editor-surveyor]

.
You can caution all you want, but you are way out in dream land.

John ch 3 tells it like it is, particularly verse 8.

1Corinthians ch 15 also keys in perfectly with Yeshua’s explanation.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Obviously reading the Bible is off-limits to him.

[presidio9]

I simply heard somewhere that Capra "supported" Franco. Many Catholics did, and someone who did so does not sound apathetic towards his Catholic upbringing.

So... In your world the only reason why someone who was brought up Catholic could support Franco was because the Catholic Church in Spain supported Franco.

Let's take that logic for a test drive. In the 1980's there were plenty of lapsed Catholics in this country. Too many, really. At that time, Pope John Paul II opposed the communist government in Poland and elsewhere. Using your doctrine, none of the lapsed Catholics in the United States who opposed communism in Poland resented their Catholic upbringing. Do I have that right?

Sounds funny to me. But, then, I'm a Catholic and you're not. So what do I know about it, right?

[editor-surveyor]

,
Your footnote is the ravings of a God hating fool.

All “sons of God” are special creations, and cannot be men.

Nowhere in God’s word are men called sons of God.

We are given the power to become sons of God (when we are caught up in the spirit, at the last trump).

[presidio9]

I actually liked her better in "From Here to Eternity"

[editor-surveyor]

.
Your attention span must be at least one second.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Are two people really spending time arguing about if angels have belly buttons!!!??!!
Too funny!

A robust discussion of which came first; the chicken or the egg would be in order for the next topic.

---

The egg of course. Who wants chicken for breakfast. Unless there are waffles, then I guess you could have chicken for breakfast.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Nonsequitur!

[presidio9]

Please enlighten me.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Read your own post.

[presidio9]

I expect that at least one of these participants does not accept the fact and theory of evolution by natural selection.

The first chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) resulted from a fertilized egg with one more genetic mutations that probably didn't make it all that different from his or her parents but still made it a preferable to a human in China 8000 years ago that he or she selected it for breeding.

Thus, it is incontrovertible that the egg came first.