Here is classic Anti-White Media, the 2002 film Far From Heaven.
I saw this once (in a captive audience on a transatlantic flight) and nearly vomited - especially when I learned that it was nominated for an Oscar.
So...if you ever wanted to know what it takes to make an Academy Award-nominated film, the formula seems to be quite straightforward:
1) Take one mildly attractive white woman and in the context of a sun-dappled autumnal garden, have her run into a hulking black man who just happens also to be kind, caring, and intelligent. He also has his own business and a business degree! Canyoubelieveit?
2) Juxtapose the aforesaid flawless black man with images of a snivelling, cheating, emotionally unpredictable, homosexual white husband. Make sure the gayness of the white man is also closeted because he also needs to be depicted as conflicted and not in touch with his "inner nature."
3) Make sure the white husband is only filmed in dreary, dark, brooding, and confined spaces.
4) Make sure the white wife's encounters with the black man occur in sunlit gardens, fruitful blossom-bearing fields, art museums, and other wholesome and welcoming environments.
5) Make sure that, while the white husband "hates" art exhibits, the black man, on the contrary, goes to art exhibits with his daughter on his own initiative. He just loves "Modern" or "abstract" art, as he says. Make sure the black man corrects the white wife's pronunciation of a famous artist. But make sure he only does so in a tender way. Make sure the white wife cannot express in words her ideas about the art she's staring at, while the black says something profoundly thoughtful and eloquent, such as:
"[you've] confirmed something I have always wondered about modern art...That perhaps it's just picking up where religious art left off, somehow trying to show you...divinity. Modern art just pares it down to the basic elements of shape and color. But when you look at that Miró, you feel just the same."
6) Juxtapose this with a limp-dicked homo of a white man in a darkened room in which he strikes his own wife who tries to convince him the obvious untruth that he is "all man."
7) Now cut to the sun-dappled lawn where the natural, smiling, kind, humble, thoughtful black guy is attending to the neglected, unappreciated white wife.
8) Make sure that sometime shortly after the black man and white woman dance in a romantic embrace, the white man throws a hissy fit (again in a darkened, dreary room).
9) Make sure the black man’s black daughter gets attacked by three white guys who aren’t prosecuted for their crime.
10) Make sure the white man again weeps and sobs and confesses his unerring faggotry, after which the white woman then tries to track down her ultimate desire, the black man, perfect as he tenderly bids her a fond adieu through a departing train's steam. She should have left that queer limp-dicked white hubbie long ago.
Now show this film on transatlantic flights to your captive audience and you have instant Anti-white propaganda.
I know what you mean. I agree. It’s phony. And as such, nauseating. What you describe is so well known, that it has a name. It’s called “The Magic Negro” syndrome. And it effects many of Hollywood’s liberal elites. These are the ones who love to portray every black male as handsome, friendly, honest, moral, brave, and highly intelligent; endowed with deep wisdom that he uses to save and redeem the white man, who they love to portray as ugly, wimpish, dumb, cowardly, weak, and helpless.
ReplyDeleteHere is a cartoon that illustrates the “Magic Negro”:
http://www.bendib.com/newones/2003/july/large/Magic-Negro.jpg
Here is another term for it, described by Jonah Goldberg in National Review:
“The Numinous Negro”
“Last August, the incomparable Richard Brookhiser (okay, he’s comparable, but only to really talented and impressive people) wrote a wonderful essay for National Review entitled “The Numinous Negro: His importance in our lives; why he is fading.” Brookhiser described the pervasive habit in American culture, high and low, of portraying blacks as “numinous.” Numinous is defined in the dictionary as “of or pertaining to a numen,” the Roman word for “the presiding divinity … of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Numinous Negroes are the cadres of blacks, real and imagined, that our culture chooses to put on a pedestal — to treat as if they are somehow more capable of seeing the important truths, spiritual and moral.
Brookhiser uses the word Negro simply because we still used the word Negro when we first started painting blacks in numinous hues. The Numinous Negro can be seen “in the gooey prose of white liberals whenever a Negro appears,” writes Brookhiser, or in any of scores of movies, like ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ and ‘The Green Mile’.
The most famous Numinous Negro was, of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose real gifts and real flaws have alike been enshrouded in a holy veil of secular divinity. Blacks themselves are active participants in this cultural project. For example, the Congressional Black Caucus frequently calls itself the “conscience of the Congress” — because, well, because they’re black. I myself have written about my habit of spotting the “anachronistic black man” in movies. These are black characters who, for Numinous reasons, are portrayed in ways which make no sense historically. My favorite recent example was the black galley cook in the WWII movie U-571 who not only bossed around all the white sailors (our armed forces were still decidedly segregated in WWII) but, when given the chance, turned out to be capable not only of driving a submarine, but of driving a German one. The all-time classic anachronistic-black-man movie, however, was 1978’s The Norseman, in which Deacon Jones (the black NFL Hall of Famer) plays one of the self-described “blonde warriors.” END OF ARTICLE EXCERPT
Continue in next post...
Blonde woman paired up with a black guy.
ReplyDeleteWhy do the writers and casting agents in Hollywood (many of whom are jewish interestingly) pick this combo when they want to portray their interracial crap?
continued from anonymous:
ReplyDeleteFactually Incorrect Firemen
Which brings us back to that pesky fireman statue. Intended to commemorate those who died in the 9/11 attack, the proposed sculpture was to borrow the now-familiar image of those firemen raising the flag amidst the rubble like the Marines did at Iwo Jima. But, as we all know, the City and its contractor have decided that instead of depicting the three white guys who actually raised the flag, they’re going to change them into a black guy, an Hispanic guy and one token white guy (it goes without saying, that if the firemen had been three black guys, this controversy never would have arisen).
Now, I’ve already covered all this in my syndicated column, which I think is pretty good. (Oh, by the way, the San Francisco Chronicle just decided to carry it, if you can believe that.) And I learned only now that they’ve put the kibosh on the statue. But my point remains. Let’s pick up where I began before we got into all of the postmodernism stuff.
Remember that black fireman’s declaration: “I think the artistic expression of diversity would supersede any concern over factual correctness.”
“Factual correctness”! I just think that’s brilliant, even if it was by accident. We think the politically correct are silly because they elevate “inclusiveness” over all other criteria. The handicapped are “physically challenged,” failures are “non-traditional successes,” ex-convicts are members of the “ex-offender community” (a serious voting bloc in your nation’s capital; see “Make it a State“), and so on. We deride political correctness as a fad of certain kinds of liberals terrified to speak plainly. Conservatives have managed to define political correctness — an age-old lefty term — as something a bit silly and unserious.
Well, now there’s a term for us too. We’re just being “factually correct.” The truth is just one more perspective — and not even a very useful one, since the highest value is no longer capital-T Truth, but diversity, inclusiveness, whatever. Women don’t make good soldiers? Oh, that’s just so much “factual correctness.” Black cooks during World War II probably didn’t know how to drive German submarines? Please, peddle your factually correct wares someplace else. You claim that reality isn’t a socially constructed linguistic artifice? Well! Now you’re just taking this factual correctness thing too far.
And since artistic expression of diversity supercedes any concern over factual correctness, you can just imagine how Hollywood and Harvard can now get the 9/11 story right. First of all, those planes were hijacked by homophobic Catholic priests and the senior management of Enron. Let’s change the name of Osama bin Laden to… hmmm… “Newt Gingrich.” And he destroyed the World Trade Center out of a homophobic desire to erase the implied phallic competition inherent in the male-oriented capitalism presented by those towers. The “firemen” were actually the faculty of the New School for Social Research, with Asian and homosexual women in wheelchairs leading the charge up the stairs of the burning building. Rudy Giuliani was mayor, but he refused to help any non-white, taxpaying victims. And, oh yeah, the planes were fueled by the adverbs in Dubliners…
crimesofthetimes.blogspot.com addresses this issue nicely.
ReplyDeleteplease read; please contribute.
Jews. So predictable.
ReplyDelete