This review is not meant to give you all the typical facts and highlights of the movie. Standard movie reviewers have already presented their perspectives, the basic story line.  Whereas this essay is meant to take more seriously what is really a rather stupid plot, but still within a beautiful movie and action packed piece of entertainment, and to speculate how it may fit "within" the too often vacuous audience culture that might watch it, as well as the movie industry that created it and critiqued it. And, granted, it is often presumptuous to interpret a work of art as something that can be criticized as more subjectively serious-but the idea of juxtaposing a fairy tale with CIA operatives is just too tempting to "not" deconstruct.

Hanna: An "Alternative" Movie Review (as more interesting and informative than your typical valedictorian speech).

By David Dense

Hanna is a 16-year-old killing machine trained by her father to be a super-soldier/ super-spy assassin. Her father Erik (Eric Bana as a handsome, vital, and seemingly wholesome father) is now considered to be a "rogue asset" to the CIA and dangerous (presumably trained previously as some special field agent). His daughter, also as newly trained assassin, is another danger to the Agency (or at least to one "bitch" employed there who seems to share some of Hanna's characteristics).

[Note:  This review is not meant to give you all the facts and highlights of the movie. Standard movie reviewers have already presented their perspectives as story line and notable features.  (Feel free to read a few to get the media's interpretation.) Whereas this essay is meant to take more seriously what is really a rather stupid plot, as story line goes (yet we still appreciate a beautiful cinematic movie as action packed piece of entertainment worthy of watching in its own right). However we speculate how it may fit "within" an often too vacuous American audience as society, as well as "how" it is viewed within the movie industry culture that created it and critiqued it. And, granted, it is presumptuous to interpret a work of art as something that can be criticized as more subjectively or objectively serious, or to imagine seeing things probably never intended-still the idea of juxtaposing a fairy tale with CIA operatives is just too tempting to "not" deconstruct. This is to say that even a dumb plot about a culture of intelligence work can be instructive.]

The "fairy" threads of this suspense story come in two forms. First, Hanna (played by Saoirse Ronan (pronounced 'Sur-shuh'), is especially noted in other reviews, for her "porcelain" skin and "delicately" feminine or girlish look. Fairy lore has long portrayed the "ethereal" and "hypnotic" beauty of fairies such as those of the Tuatha de Danann (tootha day danan) of Ireland. Yet "few," if any, professional movie reviews made note of her "blonde" hair-which is as much part of fairyland of northern Europe as any other singular feature-including creaminess of skin.

[As an aside, but perhaps an important comment to this first thread of a fairy tale theme is that "many," if not "most" fairies, at least in Western fairy lore, are female-at least in artistic renderings. Yet it very much seems the blonde "Teutonic" feature for this movie, at least on some unconscious level, is relevant. But then it also seems instructive to realize some characteristics often associated with fairy people are adjectives like "fluidity" and "fun" (as opposed to "rigidity" and "hostility that we will find with some characters in this story). "Fairy" (from the word "fate") is, on a psychological level, very much synonymous to the word "fantasy" and "fiction".) For example, one only browse any number of fashion magazines, or erotic magazines and films to know that blonde women are fantasized about-and this is not a disputable claim-it is part of fairy lore-even if we here well note that this is "not" to argue fairies in general are thought blonde-or that the "essence" of fairy nature has anything, or much, to do with physical attributes such as a race of people.]

The second thread to this fairy tale, besides blonde girl who looks like a fairy (and seems to possess some uncanny attributes), is related to Hanna's upbringing in a remote wilderness of a wild, wintery, and snow-white, Finland-that is an outpost where reindeer and wolves live. But it is her access to limited classes of ideas. Hanna is raised solely by her father while "isolated" from regular civilization, save what he alone teaches her about the world, and the kind of person she should be. He trains her to hunt, which is to kill and skin animals, to fight like a martial artist expert, and to shoot deadly weapons, etc. In another words she has the training, even as a child, of what most "macho" of special forces adult males might dream of being able to perform, as lethal weapon with jugular instinct to kill. (Not exactly your typical fairy image of dainty flower child or pot-smoking hippie.)

Yet, ironically, the director, Joe Wright, in an interview, said that he: "...hopes this PG-13 film's portrayal of a teenager, completely ‘uninfluenced' by society's notions of how women are supposed to look and behave, will speak to younger audiences..." and then he added "...I hope it will make them think a little bit, evaluate celebrity culture and the general consensus to conform."

[So forgive me if I have taken Mr. Wright at his request to think independently-even if I am a male adult but realize I "too" have need to think as separate entity or soul.]

Yes, how ironic, that the idea of a girl-child being trained to be a macho assassin for some unspecified mission related to her mother being murdered by the bitch at the CIA (and even if Hanna doesn't wear makeup but still looks hypnotically attractive) is now supposed to be a healthy and realistic rendition of what feminism and equality was all about? No fantasy here-just pure progressive idealism. Yet when an audience is presumed naïve what is the difference-certainly another award winner?

And as child-wonder Hanna is no grunt. No. She is taught, at least, three languages by her father; even if she has access to only "two" kinds of book-an encyclopedia and a copy of the 1812 Grimm's Fairy Tales (from Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm brothers-the same brothers who also wrote: "The German Heroic Tale"). But these Grimm stories are as close to child-like tales as Hanna gets to a childhood, which at least allows her occasional glimpses into a "fictional" life of some fancy (assuming, of course, just between us and the lamp post it is "primarily" children who demonstrate need for an excess of an alternative reality?).

Hence this movie is booked as a brutal and modern fairy tale. Wright declares this movie "rectifies" fairy lore "back" to a more authentic "horror" story, that is, as opposed to modernity's more recent childish notions of dainty little creatures playing in the garden.

Whereas, as an "intelligence/ special ops" movie, we could be asking ourselves, even if Hanna is a feral child raised in the wild by one motivated adult (unlike most "civilized" people, who willingly adhere to "many" types of fiction-such as "all" the fictionalized fairy tales in the Bible-or equally the many myths about how great is American and Israeli exceptionalism, and the "need" to spread democracy (as if that is what our foreign policy actually tries to do), to contemplate if equally if Washington's intelligentsia reside in some kind of protected and propagandized bubble?

And maybe Americans across the country live in a world of make-believe? For example, when a New York Times pundit argued recently in his regular column "...the United States is Israel's ‘only' friend," perhaps someone ought remind Mr. Thomas Friedman that, at least according to Aristotle, true friendship requires capacity for virtue, whereas neither the U.S. nor Israel demonstrates any such capacity, and in fact both nations are considered criminal sorts by much of the rest of the world?

Nevertheless, Hanna has had one, long childhood of "rigorous" training to be an adult-but not any adult-rather a spy assassin which has required much training for eventual success for some kind of bewildering mission (not a lot of normalcy here). It's a bit like the story of John Stuart Mill being trained by his father to read Latin and Greek Classics before most kids today start kindergarten at the age of five. Only Hanna is not taking walks with her father rather he stalks her to surprise attack her so she learns to constantly react to danger.

Hence we can note an "additional" fairy tale to this movie, as implied as a kind of preconceived presumption, that is the idea that one can fluently learn a second or third language without being exposed to the cultures and people who actually speak those languages-which equally correlates to the naive presumption one can readily understand and memorize an entire, or much of, an encyclopedia, and that such a momentous task is good preparation for dealing with real life situations as "intelligence" methodology. These kinds of zombie presumptions about learning style are what some bank on when they attack teachers and school systems for being the "problem" to America's educational system.

But think about it. The major, provocative question that could have been asked by movie reviewers (those that actually get paid to write such things) is why this father figure is raising a girl to fight and kill, only then to have a "transponder" switch (that he has been keeping around for presumably years), which when finally triggered will bring CIA special SWAT teams into this hinterland of Finland to track down both this same father and daughter, so as to kill or capture the both of them? The evil fairy "witch" Marissa (Cate Blanchett) has been waiting for such a signal for years, and no less, in the privacy of her home-as opposed to her job sight at Langley. (Nothing strange in the non-logic of a half-baked story-if baked that much?) Still it does seem obvious Marissa has some need to "possess" the young child, almost as if a twisted mother instinct, and even if the woman who actually raised Hanna was shot by Marissa years before.

Apparently Hanna knows Marissa killed the woman who raised her (as we never learn who was Hanna's biological mother). But irrespective of egg donor, these two are set to clash and kill each other-which admittedly is a somewhat interesting plot. (And there is little information readily found on the Internet about the screenplay writers Seth Lockhead and David Farr for any extra insight on which to make sense.)  

Hence the "why" question as the equivalent of calling mercenary outsourced Blackwater units, to pretty much all the way to the north pole (when they have been busy rendering "enemy combatants" and quite possibly other shady dealings) is covered away by drama queen Blanchett dollied-up, high-strung fairy "glamour" flair, as some kind of intelligence stereotype) scowling and snaring like a mean old wolf wanting to taste Goldie Locks. She seems some big shot at CIA HQs where she explains to top level decision makers the need to find and destroy both the father Erik and Hanna-or "secrets" could get out-one being that Hanna was part of a DNA genetic program to select for genes to produce a "super" species of soldier/ spy who is stronger, with more stamina, but less empathetic, yet remain highly intelligent-kind of like our stereotype of a wolf.

In another words the Third Reich's propaganda of a "superior" Aryan race and eugenics experimentation is all over this movie. But again "no" traditional movie critic so much as mentioned this dimension to the movie, save fleeting reference to "Teutonic" and "Berlin" where the movie will rendezvous-to a fairy theme park where the brother of Erik seems in a fleeting way to represent the character of a clown-but who could be a Humanities man with sense of appreciation for art, laughter, music, dance, beauty, etc. 

Terribly, Erik's brother is brutally tortured (not witnessed on screen by viewing audience thank goodness) but nevertheless by a "blonde," effeminate, sexually ambiguous, male psychopath that Marissa has hired (outsourced) to track down Hanna. He, Isaacs, apparently takes his cruelty and murder much like sport (unlike radio broadcast files at w.AntiWar.com where we learn torture may have been more prevalent at Gitmo then we might have guessed-but not so much for the motive of sport).

It is worth noting this brunette actor, as mercenary Isaacs (Tom Hollander), at least for this particular movie, did bleach-dye his hair blonde for special effect-why? (It is not often that a brunette actor dyes his hair blonde for a movie role-even if it is true actors like Leonardo DeCaprio are more prone these days to dye his hair to brunette to play leading "male" roles to partner blonde female actresses, or for roles of supposedly "masculine" icons like the Godfather (as Mafia has American nostalgia).

If female fairies were thought as "fluid" and "fun" this would not imply they were creatures who enjoyed sentiments of humanity-such as the arts, and also had propensity to laugh, or to sing and dance, etc-as fairies often do. Also in the fairy world dimensions of sexuality and gender are not so rigid as just black or white. (There was no Judeo-Christian condemnation to erotica, or some other dominant macho norm for gender appropriateness, nor much judgmental disgust of an the androgynous nature in particular).

Yet somehow the blonde "male" here is portrayed as a sexual "pervert" (an adjective our society likes to especially assign to "men" in our culture) as Isaacs has a streak for murder and mayhem that doesn't seem to end? (But culturally speaking it seems paradoxical how "often" blonde women show up in modern day erotic magazines and films and yet they, as women, are almost always considered desirable, wholesome, and welcome etc., even if they have enjoyed pretty much all variations of carnal fruit?) Metaphorically, men are not as psychologically free to wear the fairy art of a woman's clothing store as art gallery. Men traditionally stay within a narrow band of hues like black, gray, brown and blue, where fashions are stoical, predictable, and stultified-otherwise you are, well as they say, gay, (or fey). But you can have colored patterns on your tie, and you can even have the diagonals going to either direction!

So where are we-well here we have this a blonde Hanna from the wild but still found to be "accepted" socially by the traveling family from England, opposed to a blonde male killer/ pervert (to a black-drop of Eric Bana, as seemingly caring and competent father), wrapped in a movie that bespeaks of Nazi medical experimentation (referring then to a propaganda program of "Aryan" superiority-which many still think was mostly a "blonde" phenomenon)? Nevertheless typical movie reviewers saw nothing of the sort-nothing German-nothing related to what we have learned.

Whereas if we recall Bruno, as bleached blonde fashion rocker, coming to debut in the United States, who at one point rode naked on a white horse with is very blonde, long, hair, we get an equally interesting gay depiction. Nevertheless some mortal viewers and critics called the movie "lewd" and "offensive" as depiction of deviance-which was rightly true. (Note that "mortals" were the humans fairies had dealings with until they realized mortals too rigid, judgmental, repressed, and hypocritical). Still objections to Sacha Cohen's insouciant, in-your-face, can't-you-take-a-joke humor, as jolly jokester, he did have a few backup media pundits to protect his creative personality from people taking their complaints about lewdness too far. (He does have a sense of humor and is a good actor-still he was not to get any kind of Scott Ritter treatment of accusations of inappropriateness under investigation when Mr. Ritter was publicly making claims that were at odds with the phonied-up WDC/Israeli accusations about Iran's nuclear program.)

"Trooping" fairies of Scotland and the Daoine Sidhe (theena shee) of Ireland went on fairy rades (rides) in processions of horses. Lady Rhiannon, fairy of Wales, rode her white horse "between" the worlds of mortal and fairy especially on Beltane Eve. Nevertheless Bruno should have known the male gender, trying to play Lady Godiva, was not going to sell so well here in this "mortal" and "judgmental" world-especially here in the United States. (He just is not Britney Spears singing "...girls just want to have fun... yes ... girls just want to have fun ..." as girls have social permission to be fairies in a world that maintains heavy male recrimination to sexual motive-as often presumed to come from the worst of intentions and natures). Plus was one not readily invited to believe a tough, private body guard complaining about being "flashed" by a celebrity as fairy a bit desperate-especially when so many men pay plenty of greenbacks to voluntarily see such excitement at totally nude night clubs? 

But then maybe Donald Trump's blonde puff was related to his unmitigated arrogance and penchant to fire people at will? Might a connection here-too much preening in this guy? Whereas, Miss Intelligentsia Ann Coulter couldn't repress her desire to "Breck-girl" John Edwards-but then Edwards did pay a lot for a haircut-still this factoid will never change the balance to the difference of male versus female expenditures on physical improvement to being equal or weighted as such.

So what can we, as a culture, take seriously about fairy nature? Well it took a "real" fairy, by the name of Tina-the-tine ala le Fey, to "disarm" Sara Palin (even if Palin can shoot her rifle at wolves from a snowmobile while still playing up her "homey" motherliness to soccer moms). Yes Mrs. "Christian" mama in red, white and blue swimwear while holding her high caliber Rambo machine was an All American super-star. But why-what were her outstanding "creds" that the Republican Party vaulted her to the "top" of the chart? (Could it be her "undying" faith in Judeo-Christianity and willingness to subordinate all to Israel's rightwing Likud demands, or her capacity for self-delusion?) Whereas the SNL pixie, with a twinkle in her eyes and a smile on her lips, showed what the wit of fairy power could do. A battle of one Barbie doll versus another-as they both look "hot" in swimming suits (Fey wins hands down) came to a matter of comedy.

And if you don't think Tina Fey is a fairy then you don't understand-and probably never will-irrespective of if she ever was trained to be assassin or lived alone like some haggard-looking, Middle-Aged, witch.

Still we can ask if the "stereotype" of someone who is sexually "ambiguous" (such as the kinky or gay person) can honestly be "presumed" to be more inclined to be criminality, as suggested in Tom Hollander's blonde Isaac psychopath. Such a prejudice may not play out in terms of forensic science. (And granted there are a lot of bad guys as stock character to movies, but it is interesting how the team that put this movie together, with its Nazi connotations, portrays the blonde male.)

Any reference to killing and torture is no small point to our historical times of real torture, as well as documented U.S. support of "many" dictators around the world, such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, or jackboot tactics used in Israel (see w.Occupation101.com for an eye opener.)

But what we get, as a culture, from the movie industry, at least these last few years, are more movies about Nazis and Jews as victims (which certainly has its place as a legitimate movie genre and social and political concern for awareness building). But somehow it seems too easy to suggest some myth that blonde people are "more" prone to racial pride and racism; when the fact remains true that "much" of the top Nazi brass was "not" blonde, and its propaganda machine was not primarily run by blonde people, and that Hitler himself was not a blonde.

Yet this is not to argue there weren't blonde Nazis. Obviously there were. Germany was, and is, a country "full" of Teutonic people-adjacent to the Scandinavian countries like Finland. Nevertheless there is something specious when the English speaking movie industry gives us a plethora of Nazi movies while it is clear that Israel, and its AIPAC lobby here in the United States, played a "pivotal" part in getting our country to attack Iraq (with contacts in cahoots with neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith at the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans), and also is still playing a significant part in more seemingly false intelligence to manipulate the American people in a war with Iran.

And maybe it is time that "reference to" and "insinuation about" any theory of "Aryan" superiority, should ask if the concept of Teutonic is really the same as an abstract theory about a more inclusive noun like Aryan identity? The Aryan concept is based on a theory of ancient people spreading from Iran and India, which as far as physical features go, could easily include brunettes, and even Caucasian Jews-at least as ideas go?

If you remember the movie "The Reader" we were served up this "magical" blonde German teenager who has a precocious and mythical capacity to read adult books with all kinds of foreign names, name-places, and complicated vocabulary (say Greek classics) from off the top of his head, as if he could perform perfect articulation like some super-intelligent genius others only wished they could presume? (Yet plenty of Bar Mitzvah kids, already planning their PhDs as over-achievers, know reading foreign nouns and complicated vocabulary isn't so simple.) Whereas, Kate Winslet, in this Reader movie, played a not-very-reflective, boorish prison guard, more or less suggesting that a whole range of "blonde" Germans were not very aware of Nazi atrocities or who did not care enough to make trouble. (Still the Germans had serious tactics to silence people-unlike in the United States where people are even more easily cowed.)

And if this essay is beginning to sound anti-Semitic we might ask ourselves why no one "ever" suggests there might be an  "anti-Teutonic" sentiment in this nation? You never hear of such an idea against the "ubiquitous" term of anti-Semitism every time someone criticizes Israeli politics. Granted blondes have not been persecuted as a religious heresy or ethnicity-but just maybe some like to presume some prejudice nevertheless? 

For example there seems to be a kind of an unconscious presumption that blondes were especially prone to Hitler's campaign and appeals. (And was it a bit easier to stomach the bashing the head of blonde Nazi Kraut officer with a baseball bat in Quentin Tarantino's InGlorious Basterds ... as few movie reviews had time for any protest-while Tarantino still used a very Teutonic blonde female movie star to play a "Jewish" woman who escaped being murdered as a child? (No Dalai Lama or hypocrite here.)

And if you think this essay is some crap conspiracy theory about blonde as racist suspect consider The Nation magazine May 9, 2011 story: "Europe's Rising Islamophobia" by Paul Hockenos (an author billed simply as a writer in Berlin-usually you need more established credentials to get published in The Nation). This article is a good example of seeing what wants to see as depiction of this psychology. Shortly into the story we learn of "poster boy" platinum blonde Dutch Freedom Party Geert Wilders as example of Northern Europe especially prone to xenophobia---that is countries with Teutonic populations such as in France, Netherlands, Demark, Germany, etc. But hey-no explicit mention is made with anyone's hair being brunette or racists of other ethnic origins in the article (save some gray haired economist)? (Why is not Nicolas Sarkozy a "poster boy" of European Islamophobia-this same article refers to France's ridiculous burqa ban?) (Equally in another Nation article December 14, 2009 "The New Inquisition" by Laila Lalami she writes Sarkozy promised he would "hose down" the "scum" of Paris suburbs, where many of the city's Muslims reside.) Why does Hockenos' article not include Eastern European countries or Southern Europe like Italy? This strategy is almost as if implying that because Glenn Beck and Don Imus are red neck and racist therefore these right wing talk radio "poster boys" imply how racist Teutonic people are in the U.S.  

Yet certainly the article about "phobia" fear-mongering has plenty enough truth. But what we are "not" led to consider is if there is "any" Jewish Islamophobia and propaganda intermixed of this equation. Rather the same Nazi suspect-blonde male, and his resentment at loosing control and power, is where we are expected to "focus" our suspicion.

One could ask, for example, if blonde men own and control much of Europe's news media? They sure don't own and control much of it here in the United States. And yet what industry plays more to ideological fear than the news media-be it print or radio? Just where do potential racists get their ideas on which to base their presumptions-if not the media?

The subtitle of the Europe's Rising Islamophobia" article is "...what makes it (racism) so lethal is that it has broad appeal-from the far left to the far right." But the examples alluded to led the reader to infer civilized blondes should know better by now-as if they have some special ability of discernment and sophisticated acumen to base their instincts beyond any media's deliberate attempt to create such prejudice.

Where are the missing gaps of educating Western peoples about how the West has manipulated the politics in the Middle East for a very long time? Why are we not educated more on our part of putting and keeping the brutal dictator Shah in power in Iran? Why are we not educated on how we help put Saddam Hussein in power and left him alone until he nationalized oil-because the oil companies were too greedy? Where is our education on U.S. support of Bin Laden and the billions of dollars of weaponry for Charlie Wilson's war?

Instead we get a diet of seemingly deliberately fabricated bullshit stories about Muslim cells planning to blowup buildings or airplanes. Incompetent shoe and underwear bombers, by terrorists that supposedly had such sophistication it could penetrate "all" of the United States immense security. Now they can't even blow up their own clothing? Other stories of FBI screw-ups and entrapment games. If anything stands out it is how few terrorists have not been discovered with all the billions of dollars and resources spent; or how few Gitmo prisoners have actually been successfully prosecuted for terrorism, or how few of those Muslims rounded up shortly after 9/11 have been prosecuted. 

But such realities don't stop the propaganda war. So when it comes to pointing fingers at Germanic nations in Europe or a platinum blonde we are suppose to believe that no one or no covert activity has had any "deliberate" interest in creating such fear and animosity between what are essentially white Christian nations (historically as ancestry) versus brown skinned Muslim nations?

For example, are we expected to believe there was no calculated attempt to "create" such Islamo-phobia here in the United States or in Europe-that this prejudice that occasionally boils over is just some spontaneous over-reaction?

No Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"? No Brzezinkski "The Grand Chessboard"? No Neo-Con-Artist PNAC strategies? No Jewish groups sponsoring films like "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West?" No David Horowitz Freedom Center Film "There is a battle being waged in America," and Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week"? No ADL fueling the controversy on Ground Zero Mosque? No Campus Campaigns to fire professors who criticize Israel? No propaganda war-just a bunch of dumb cattle getting excited? (This is as interesting as ChevronMobile naming a oil tanker after Condilissa Rice.)

Paul Hockenos article instead paints a picture that says:

"Where it manifest itself in electoral parties, such as in France, the Netherlands, Demark, Switzerland, Austria and now even Sweden and Finland, its advocate fare much better than old-school far-right parities eve did, with their vulgar anti-Semitism and expansionist fantasies..."

Clearly then Islamophobia as phenomenon, at least in Europe, is due to "blonde" Aryans all over again-especially since "one" more or less writer in Berlin can focus his thought processes however he so likes? Yet surely territories with high ratios of blondes have their racists as all countries and groups of people do. Still one finds this finger pointing disingenuous. Maybe we should instead watch the video called "The New American Century" by Massimo Mazzucco (might be at w.FreeDocumentaries.org)?

Within these propaganda wars and winning hearts and minds we might realize that if we get regular sounds bites about of Islamic or Palestinian enemies "hiding" behind human shields of civilians we ought to also wonder if some don't equally "hide" behind the tragedy and suffering of Jews during WW2?

Or if we get innuendoes in respect to propaganda of Aryan superiority we might wonder if there isn't just a bit of conceit with some Jewish people, a minority for sure, but who think they are of a "superior" culture-whether they consciously admit to it or not-and even though many of the fictions of their historical Bile were either made up, revised, or copied from other Middle Eastern ancient cultures-such as the flood story from the Epics of Gilgamesh? 

Or ask yourself if it is not true some ancestors of Middle Easterners and Mediterranean peoples alike sometimes presume to lay claim to "real" civilization and historical affiliation to greatness and sophistication, such as Classical Rome and Greece, as these peoples had early access to written language-which is the basis of modernity and civilization-and is also the basic of myth and propaganda-whereas the Scandinavian peoples did not-and thus were considered more "barbaric"? 

So if a story about the CIA involved in breeding a super class of warrior is plausible, given today's bio-engineering and gene-splicing, we can still ask what is more likely the truth, as the U.S. spends a great deal of its money on "super" weapons-and not so much on military personnel-save what it has to, to keep a voluntary army-which it sometimes treats as dispensable. Soldiers today learn how to kill from the distance of a computer using drones, or pilots bombing from airplanes, so some don't have to experience the real horror of war.

Whereas what fairy children might be thinking today, even if not directly asking their parents, are questions like: "Why did you bring me into this world with thousands of nuclear weapons, and hundreds of thousands of other weapons, and the given criminal nature and history of mankind, and the world's pollution problems, over-population, greed, lies, etc., and all the prejudice, rationalization, ideological presumption and the stupidity of ‘mortal' people?" (Just because the un-examined life may not be worth living doesn't automatically mean an examined life is so worth it-when one adds up all of humanity's insanity.) This is the "real" modern day generation gap conflict between the young and the old-this idea that people should continue to breed and breed even in a world of so much potential conflict, so much deceit and self-deceit-even in a world in which religious politics plays Russian roulette as if a game ready to explode into WW3. Yes, this is what people, and not just the young, are really wondering-even if they assimilate the fantasy of Harry Potter movies.

Whereas older generations seem naïve to the cynical nature of reality, and they act as if they can't possibility think their own government and culture a bit shady or a "horror" story. (Besides, there are always Muslims, immigrants, criminals and sexual offenders to focus fear.)

Read John Pilger's The New Rulers of the World published between the time we attacked Afghanistan and were politically moving to attack Iraq. It is still a "very" worthy read, especially now after the full-press campaign from our tax-paid military, intelligence, and the fawning mainstream media, on Osama bin Laden's death-because this eye-opener of a book, from one of the "great" investigative journalists of our time, is still a breath of truth in a vast sea of murk Americans are drowned into every day. (There are some interesting tidbits as to why our involvement in Afghanistan.)

One important question Pilger posed is: "Was it not terrorism to horrendously bomb 600,000 neutral Cambodians in a secret war during the Vietnam War? Or was it not terrorism to genocidal kill-off Iraqi children during the U.S. led embargo of the Bush 1 and Clinton years?

Many in-the-know Internet users realize there were plenty of "fake" Osama bin Ladin videos that showed up on dubious websites that claimed to speak for him. But now we are supposed to believe that his death justifies our invasions and the gulag system of the likes of Guantanamo? (As if no longer as much an issue-just as if in the mosque controversy in New York quelled the debate of detainee trials there?) Have we forgotten Seymour Hersh's research shows that prisoners were rounded up by drug lords because they were paid to hand people over?

John Pilger also notes in his chapter: "The Great Game" that during the 1930s the term "anti-German" was used against critics of the Third Reich to silence them. (No relation to the present or to "Rush is Right" slogans or any such possible demagoguery.)

This is the point to criticizing this Hanna movie, if we assume much worth criticizing in a broader and more serious context-as tied to something more than what chatterboxes focused on, like how much Hanna runs in the movie, or how good the cast for talent, or how alike is Blanchett to Ronan, etc-and that is movies are tied to culture as well. Rather on the overt level it's "just" entertainment-except that it makes reference to other "schema" from the real world and history-that required a dollop of recognition.

Still Hanna has several worthy recommendations worth seeing as its own piece of art. (Nevertheless American artists seem one more aspect of society that has become irrelevant has far as having much worthy of saying-while some live in their own fairy land of being avante garde.) Yet what does this lame response of not connecting any dots say about American culture? It says a lot-and it is not pretty-almost an omen of repeat history.

Because what kind of personality traits, via any DNA predilections, are being reinforced here in the U.S. or England-not so much intelligence, curiosity, or inquiry, but rather the opposite-as well as an ability to dissimilate (that is to lie). And certainly not a capacity to notice the huge police state that has evolved, that even the "beltway" Washington Post had portrayed "briefly" as an intelligence apparatus run amok in its story on "Top Secret America" by Dana Priest back in July of 2010 (and has since dropped from its radar), even if providing the "barest" of an outline that reveals what still speaks to pages of unanswered questions. Here we could begin to connect some dots, like 1200 governmental organizations and 1900 private companies ("not" required to reply to freedom of information requests, as some could have loyalties "outside" the United States) working on counter-terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S. Another dot says there are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, etc. In another words America's spy culture is super-big and just waiting for a demagogue to come along and blow it into full fledged fascist state-while Obama, who, rumor has it, was trained under Henry Kissinger, does nothing. 

Good Americans are now the Good Germans-only this time it is OK because Americans aren't fighting against Israel but rather for Israel. And if some news pundits like Charles Krauthammer complain the Obama Administration is throwing Israel "under" the bus-then we need to be asking where is the movie about Rachel Corrie and other victims of Israeli bulldozers? It's all good.

So when big, bad, Bibi, the double alpha dog, came here to the United States, to address "his" Congress (as AIPAC owns the U.S. Congress as far as Middle East policy goes) we see more cowering and supine behavior from the world's most powerful country of legislative pawns. Supposedly he received about "60" standing ovations-for a man who has done "nothing" for the true interests of this country-by a bunch of manipulated puppet fools?

The corruption levels are high in Washington D.C. and still the humble are manipulated by an equivalent of God's prophets-as opposed to "mere" political philosophers who came up with the idea that "all" people are "equal" as human beings and citizens-not the dubious sound bite that Israel is a democracy because Jews "only" are considered equal.

Besides what kind of God would have created the war propaganda that Moses claimed God had told him that they were to "kill" off the inhabitants of Canaan (as they supposedly came out of Egypt) because (we are brainwashed to believe) this God "gave" them that land? If this isn't an out-dated fiction of a fairy tale then what is?

How much longer are we to fall for this "absolutist" demand for a Zionist State? Even within the reality of all the persecution Jews have experienced throughout history, and in the death camps of WW2, this still does not mean that there must be a Jewish State that other countries must agree to. This idea is "not" a sacred cow that cannot be questioned. And perhaps it is time it was questioned?

Still the American People ought to "equally" go along with Netanyahu's rejection of the U.S. State Department/White House peace proposal of a separate state for Palestinians and Israelis, and realize real peace will only be likely when we and other NATO countries stop supporting "any" idea of "any" religious Theocracy in "any" Middle East country, or elsewhere, including the presumption that we must be a Zionist project in Israel-or that we owe this to them.

What the world needs is a "single" state solution of a commingling of "all" peoples and spiritual orientations. No other way, in this heavily guarded insanity, is possible-unless you want to inadvertently support continual covert killing and terror and continual bleeding of taxpayer funds-because that is all that ever happens-is more and more money flows out of the U.S. The U.S. State Department is deluded to think that this two state solution has any realistic probability-given the realities that have hence transpired. It is time for Walmart lawyers like Hillary Clinton to wakeup. There is no way to guarantee, or underwrite, any people a religiously based homeland-especially in the Middle East. It is nothing but a guarantee to prolong hostility. (In fact it is precisely this hostility and crisis management that keeps the situation as a way to manipulate politics and our purses.)

If it makes one anti-Semitic to argue against a Jewish state-so be it. At least it has a ring of sanity.

Blanchett's Marissa, with her itchy fingernails, was no Valerie Plane-the lady ousted by Dick Cheney's White House in which Scooter Libby wrote up the speech Colin Powell was to present the United Nations full of disinformation. Plane and her husband, Joseph Wilson, seemed to act on principles that, we as a society, claim to value. Whereas one cannot say the FBI went out of its way to promote, or genetically "select" for traits of Sibel Edmonds (see The American Conservative story "Who's Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? November 2009). Her courage is more real than most people will ever meet in the course of their life. (Plus she is quite attractive as creature manifestation.) Or what about Dr. Dahlia Wafsi YouTube videos? Are we to pretend there are no "real" women to function as role models that we have to invent them as macho killers?

No one who sees Hanna is an island living alone. You have to live in society to know about this movie and see it. And people don't learn to think independently just by living in some exotic place and killing caribou. People think independently by learning to think and feel, as sophisticated and reflective creatures. (One definition of fairy is the capacity to know one's heart.)

Nevertheless billions and billions of dollars have slipped away and been wasted for war and corruption and Middle Eastern bribery.  Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules points out that after the cold war both our military and the intelligence business should have "split" their budgets in half. (But people would not have been promoted and less money could have been made, or conned, off the American taxpayer.) But magically, with this War On Terrorism, these budgets have doubled while U.S. popularity has significantly decreased (and while "other" governmental programs fall to fiscal ax of forced austerity).

Pagan fairies of non-urbanized areas were forced to go "underground" when Roman imperialism officiated Judeo-Christianity to be the State Religion of their empire, so too "un-believers" of officiated propaganda and dogma today may need to go underground as well-without transponders.

The End

Feel free to share with your friends and your congress people. 

Sincerely,

Dave Dense