January 5, 2013

Audience racial demographics for "Django Unchained"

Outside the movie trade press, the ethnic demographics of movie audiences are seldom discussed. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the audience demographics for prestige films are hideously white, while the demographics of blockbusters are vibrant, which is pretty depressing when you think about our idiocratic future, and who wants to think about that?

Another reason is that the movie industry isn't in a hurry to point out the fact that their most enthusiastic fans are Hispanics, who aren't, although nobody mentions this, very cool. 

From the MPAA on movie attendance:


And Hollywood does next to nothing for Hispanics in terms of employing them or making movies about them, and doesn't intend to start now. 

The booming Chinese movie market is not interested in Mexican-Americans at all. For example, the recent sci-fi movie Looper was the first American film ever to open bigger in China than in America. It depicts an America in a generation with, seemingly, no Latinos. And nobody in China, apparently, missed them.

Back in the 1980s, you used to hear that African-Americans made up a quarter of the American market for movie tickets. That over-representation appears to have faded, as has most black momentum at making movies. 

Blacks will still show up in large numbers for a black movie, like the biggest black-directed movie of 2012, the Steve Harvey self-help rom-com Think Like a Man, which made a highly profitable $91 million domestically. But that film, which I found quite enjoyable (it would likely make my Top Ten for 2012 along with 21 Jump StreetSavages, and maybe Get the GringoSafety Not Guaranteed, and The Master). It made absolutely no impression on white film enthusiasts as a whole. Patrick Goldstein reported in an article on its director, competent veteran Tim Story, who has made Barbershop and the Fantastic Four movies:
But [Tim Story is] still working at a disadvantage because he’s a black filmmaker at a time when the people who run today’s studios are overwhelmingly white and not especially well-versed or even particularly curious about African American culture. After “Think Like a Man” opened at No. 1, one studio president decided not to mention the film during the studio’s Monday morning production meeting, curious to see how long it would take to surface as a topic of conversation. 
Fifteen minutes into the meeting, no one had mentioned the film. When the studio boss finally brought it up, asking who had seen it over the weekend, the room was silent. None of the all-white staff had bothered to go see it. 

So, that leads us to Django Unchained. The official media controversy about the movie was whether blacks would boycott it due to writer-director Quentin Tarantino's frequent use of the "N-word." Because, as we all know, blacks never ever ever use that word, and no black entertainment product ever includes it. 

Well -- what do you know? -- it turns out that black people like the N-word. From the Hollywood Reporter:
African Americans Turn Out in Force for Quentin Tarantino's 'Django Unchained' 
by Pamela McClintock 
Debate over multiple uses of the N-word in "Django" doesn't appear to be dampening interest in the film. 
Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained -- starring Jamie Foxx as a slave in the pre-Civil War South -- is doing strong business among African-American moviegoers. 
This despite the fact that Django, from The Weinstein Co., features more than 100 uses of the N-word, igniting a debate over whether the movie is racially insensitive. 
But much as Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds sanctified violence against Nazis, Django targets another bad guy nobody can sympathize with -- a slave owner.

A commenter pointed out that if Tarantino was really courageous, he would have made a movie about a black slave slaughtering Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
When Foxx's character is freed by a bounty hunter, played by Christoph Waltz, the duo go after Leonardo DiCaprio's character, the ruthless master of a plantation. 
Opening on Christmas Day, 42 percent of Django's initial audience was black, according to exit polling data. TWC estimates that the percentage now is holding steady at about 30 percent, while a look at the top-performing theaters for Django further confirms that it has crossed over, playing to both white and black moviegoers. 
Django has grossed $77.8 million so far in North America and has a strong shot at becoming Tarantino's most successful film at the domestic box office, eclipsing the $120 million earned by Inglourious Basterds in 2009. ... 
Of Django's top 10-grossing theaters, three cater heavily to African-Americans: The Cinemark Egyptian 24 in Baltimore, the AMC Hoffman Center in Alexandria, Va., and the AMC Southlake 24 in Atlanta. And another three draw a mixed audience, including the AMC Empire 25 in New York City and the Regal Atlantic Stadium 16 in Atlanta. 

I wonder whether blacks showed up for Inglourious Basterds? In my experience, Mexicans didn't show up for either IB or DU.
Other top 10 theaters for Django include AMC Regal Union Square in New York City and the ArcLight in Sherman Oaks.

The ArcLight in Sherman Oaks, by the way, is horrible,  The walk from the parking garage to the theater is inexplicably soul-crushing, the tickets are $14.75, and if you show up during the previews, they won't let you in.
While these locations nearly always make the list of top-grossing theaters for any given film, the Egyptian and Hoffman Center don't as a rule pop up unless a movie crosses over, such as The Blind Side. 
For example, none of the top 10 theaters for Django's fellow holiday releases The Hobbit: An Unepexpected Journey or Les Miserables are in heavily black communities. 
There's no racial breakdown for the recent Denzel Washington drama Flight, though the Egyptian was the only black theater making the top 10 list.
Conversely, Foxx's Ray, released in 2004, played to a predominately black audience. ...
Just before Christmas, Spike Lee publicly chastised Tarantino for being "disrespectful" of black poeple and called for a boycott of Django.

A black person commented on the Hollywood Reporter article:
While whites are busy getting offended on our behalf, they miss completely why we are going to see this film. It's a bIack man kiIIings white people in masses. I will pay to see that every time. 
I've seen this film 3 times so far and am going again Saturday night. It's an awesome movie.

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

A black person commented on the Hollywood Reporter article:

Is that the commenter "Truth"?

Power Child said...

Are you sure that person was black?

Anonymous said...

Movie is not historically accurate.

Wikipedia: Django Unchained

On his plantation, Candyland, male slaves are trained to fight to the death for sport, while female slaves are forced into prostitution.
[...]
They are shocked to witness a slave executed by having attack dogs tear him apart
[...]
Candie [...] demands $12,000 for Broomhilda or else he will kill her in front of Django.



It would be somewhat realistic if it were about:
South American slavery.
Native African slavery.
Barbary pirate slavery.
Ottoman Empire slavery.
Golden Horde slavery.

Slavery by Europeans in America was a lot more laid back. Gone With the Wind would be a more realistic depiction.

cigarettes and whiskey and wild, wild women said...

Replying to Spike Lee, I don't think it was disrespectful - I tensed up as self-control came up a couple of times (Django overplaying his role to DeCaprio, the German being unable to hold back toward the end), and both times favor the black man. It wouldn't surprise me if that was conscious.

Desmond said...

You mean there's a theater in this country that won't allow latecomers in so they can disturb the patrons who bothered to show up on time? Count me in. My dreams have come true.

Street Pressure said...

The film is propaganda designed to trigger black on white attacks on the street. Just like Machete was meant to trigger Hispanic rage.

They want whites to be attacked on the street and everywhere else.

But 6'5" Steve Sailer doesn't feel the increasing street pressure that you, dear reader, might feel at any time.

Harry Baldwin said...

Well -- what do you know? -- it turns out that black people like the N-word.

Samuel L. Jackson likes it so much he refused to answer a reporter's question unless he would use the word.

It's a bIack man kiIIings white people in masses.

I think the commenter conflated "en mass" and "massas."

Anonymous said...

It's quite disgraceful how whites are actively cheering on this disgusting racist movie. I am not white, and I was in a theater when the trailer for Django came up. That line about killing white people and being paid to do it, just made me cringe. Dafuq is up with that sort of thing? At the very least some southern redneck should make a movie glorifying slavery in revenge. American whites are setting a bad example for the rest of the world with their self flagellation.

Socially Extinct said...

Desmond, yes, the Arclight chain is a little fancy and you can buy an (ALCOHOLIC!!) drink from the bar and bring it to your very comfy reserved seat if you wish. Or you can buy a latte and do the same if you see the early showing of Zero Dark Thirty as I did. Me and my son were the only visible Mexicans in the joint (Hollywood).

Despite popular perceptions, it's really easy to avoid us in Los Angeles. You just need to know where to go or what to see :)

Anonymous said...

"It's quite disgraceful how whites are actively cheering on this disgusting racist movie. ... American whites are setting a bad example for the rest of the world with their self flagellation. "

Two points:
1) The definition of 'American white' often varies depending on who,whom principle.

2) There is no question that large portion of white American population is borderline mentally retarded when it comes to racial relations. For example they will not recognize a movie is against them even if all others do. As a matter of fact many on the "right" side of politics will say that the movie is secretly not about what everyone else sees or that it is secretly even pro-white.

In addition:
Whites buy into their competitors' frame that they either have to be:
a) Blood-thirsty, supremacist, racial bigots who kill all others.
b) Completely submissive and weak to the point of giving away the whole farm.

There are no in-between points according to this frame - none!

Anonymous said...

A movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED would be more justifiable if blacks never got a chance to strike back at whitey. If that were case, an angry black movie could have therapeutic value, like Bruce Lee's CHINESE CONNECTION.

But blacks got tons of revenge--and the hellishness continues(and against all whites regardless of their ancestry and even against hispanics, asians, muslims, etc)--, and black violence is a main concern all over america.
So many whites have been raped, robbed, attacked, and murdered by blacks, yet this movie pretends as though slavery ended last year.

And most black violence isn't about righteous rage but contempt, greed, and arrogance on the part of blacks against 'pussy ass' non-blacks.

Tarry can fantasize as he does because he lives in his privileged bubble world.
It's like rich white liberals can shout 'burn baby burn' because they know their own neighborhoods won't burn.

Anonymous said...

The false depiction of cruelty on the Christian-European run slave plantion isn't even a tiny fraction as bad as it was in the rest of the world.

Here is what things were like in Benin before France colonialized them and suppressed native culture:

Memoirs of the Reign of Bossa Ah dee,
King of Dahomy... 1791
http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/norris/norris.html#p93
link

The king has two houses ... I observed a great number of human skulls, fixed on small stakes on the roof of it ... On each side of the door was a pile of human heads, at least fifty in each; ... a small stage about ten feet high, on which lay about two dozen heads ... , who had been sacrificed a few days before, at some of the late festivals.
...
a troop of about two hundred and fifty females ... This band was composed of ladies of pleasure, ordered to be such by royal authority.
...
The king's seraglio consists of between three and four thousand; his principal men, have from one to three or four hundred wives each; and people in humbler stations from half a dozen, to twenty
...
seven ... men with their ankles and wrists secured ... the night preceding the next festival; when, both men and horses were to have their heads struck off
...
I found ... the heads of thirty-two horses and thirty-six men who had been massacred on two preceding festivals,
...
This is the last human sacrifice at the Customs, ... the carcase of the human victim is almost wholly devoured, as all the mob below will have a taste of it.
...
He had a neat detached room for sleeping in, ... and the little area within it, was paved with skulls, ... whom he had taken prisoners in the course of his wars;
...
a large party ... having been surprized and routed ... captives were brought to the royal encampment, and of this number no less than four hundred were instantly sacrificed.
...
the common men in general had from forty to fifty wives each; and their superiors from three to four hundred, and some of them even one thousand: the king himself maintained a haram of between four and five thousand.
...
The bulk of the people are slaves to a few freemen;

Anonymous said...

Wow, whites paying money to see this really ought to have been awarded some kind of self-hating-whites card at the theater door.

Amazed Tarantino didn't think of that.

Anonymous said...

White 'racism' has been
de-historicized and made into an eternal truth. So, even if blacks were to become masters over enslaved whites, blacks would still feel the righteous rage to beat and kill whites.

It will never go away since 'black slavery' and 'white guilt', like the Original Sin, can never be washed away according to liberal dementia(and ALL whites be blamed for it). Funny how secular and rational liberals speak of black slavery in spiritual terms.

It's like for many many centuries, the killing of Christ by Jews and the killing of Christians by pagan heathens became eternalized and de-historicized. So, ALL Jews were blamed for killing the Messiah no matter how much time passed and no matter how many Jews were killed by Christians. And even after Christians gained total power, they continued to revive the story of evil pagans feeding Christians to lions, and that filled Christians with the righteous rage to persecute and kill pagan heathens forever. It didn't matter that the Christians were the oppressors and pagan were now the victims. Since Christian victimhood and pagan villainhood had been eternalized regardless of historical development, Christian violence against pagans was always seen as victims attacking villains.

Anonymous said...

DU is still better than something like Green Mile with the mt sized negro.
At least DU says blacks are murderously angry and hateful, justified or not.
Green Mile fills people the ridiculous notion that negro is willing to lay his life down for the white man's soul.
when it comes negro worship, libs lose all sense of irony.

DU at least clears the air. there is only the angry ni----, no noble negro.

Anonymous said...

Slavery in America was not, as a rule, incredibly brutal until the cotton gin and mechanization. That was when slaves started being worked to death instead of being hired out and offered opportunities to purchase their own freedom.

Mr. Anon said...

I recently saw part of "The Help" (the wife was watching it). It was the typical revisionist sort of Hollywood tripe (Oh, those horrible southerners / nothing of note every happened south of the mason-dixon line except the civil rights movement) made by people who wouldn't live near black people if you paid them to.

Based on what I have read of Django Unchained, and though I despise Tarantino, I would sooner pay money to see it than I would "The Help". It's probably less offensive.

Lizard Giggle said...

I heard Derbyshire mention that to people just coming to the US, it is rather obvious how much Blacks don't like Whites. It is obvious in everything from personal treatment to the media images Blacks love. Want to sell some energy drink to Blacks? Make a 'white boy' look stupid.

People will look back and be amazed at how oblivious we were to the anti-White spirit of this age.

Anonymous said...

The worst thing about DU is the celebratory nihilism, a thug vanity that delights in mayhem but seeks feeble justification in historical justice, like Tarantino really cares about humanity.

This is the ugly side of American consumerist hedonist egocentric capitalism. DU is really about self-promotion of tarry and foxx.

If tarry was really serious about racial issues, he would have something like the chant of jimmie blacksmith, but that would require some thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXuX-UwHKwI

But such film won't shmooze the egos of all these idiot young moviegoers who want movies to be rock concert videogames.

Blacks say they wanna see a black guy killing whites, but would they be lining up if this movie really offered food for thought?
No, blacks just wanna see a movie with lots of violence. After all, most of rap has been about blacks killing blacks, but blacks sho luv that. And white kids luv rap songs about blacks killing blacks too.

The real appeal is vanity, thuggery, coolbadassness, egomania, slickity slackiness, and jiveasspunkeryness. And the 'n-----' is anachronistically used as in rap songs, right?

This is tarry's eminem act. sheeeeet, he a badass white boy, and he can outni--a da ni--az.

Russians went through hell in WWII but soviet film were never this ugly about germans. Soviet Union was bad but it disdained egocentric egotism and consumer-hedonism that is all the rage in decadent and rotten america.

For all its faults, I thought Roots humanized the black experience. But DU is the sort of movie where everyone is hiply dehumanized, thus giving them license to kill like terminators.

My guess is caprio wanted this role not so much because he wanted to teach lessons about slavery but because even villains are cool and badass in tarry's films.
good or bad, white or evil, it's really about the style of who is a badass mothafuc*a.

It's like even asshole walken in true romance is a cool badass mothafic*a. so is hannah in kill bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yon2GyoiM

Boo said...

Django Unchained was a wonderful movie.

The complaints about killing white slave owners is a bit over the top. Who cares what happens to the white slave owners? Also, all of the various Django movies that have been made over the years were about revenge killing, so I don't see how this version of Django is all that different.

Hell, even the uncle Tom, played by Samuel Jackson, gets killed, so it was not only whites that got killed.

Anonymous said...

Tarry is part of rock culture in which style counts for more than good vs bad.

So, IB and DU's appeal is the thrill of badass vs badass than good vs bad.
It's like the Stones relished being the satanic bad boys of rock. Mick even wanted to star in a clockwork orange.

It's rage not as morality but as slick brand.

Anonymous said...

well, at least you can't say django was just armed with skittles.

Anonymous said...

I guess the knoxville massacre was a revolutionary act.

Anonymous said...

this movie sounds like a hate hoax.
there was surely a dark side to american slavery, but to turn it into an unmitigated Tarante's Inferno.

blacky horror picture show.

junglebunny and sauerclyde

gimme disco inferno instead.

now i know why tarry likes the gibber. gibber also turned Jesus's punishment and death into a crazed hate hoax. Jesus died terribly but not that horribly. and mayans killed lots of folks but not like in apocalypto--aztecs did that.

but bashion of the Christ was a huge hit whereas most americans never even heard of Pasolini's remarkable Gospel according to Matthew. so, what does it tell us about dumb dumb america?

btw, this all reminds of roman gladiator fights, and italian-americans seem to still have knack for that kind of thing.
tarry is our cinema nero, or cinero. he delights in gladiator gore but pretends like his giving moralistic ups and downs.





Simon in London said...

>> Lizard Giggle said...
I heard Derbyshire mention that to people just coming to the US, it is rather obvious how much Blacks don't like Whites. It is obvious in everything from personal treatment to the media images Blacks love. Want to sell some energy drink to Blacks? Make a 'white boy' look stupid.

People will look back and be amazed at how oblivious we were to the anti-White spirit of this age.<<

This was exactly my own experience. When I first visited the US as a naive British twenty-something I was completely unprepared for the black racial hatred I experienced. Getting through Detroit airport was traumatic.
Brits and other non-Americans are also surprised by the white US animosity towards blacks though; it's not 100% one-sided, though these days the violence is almost entirely so. In general race relations in the US seem far worse than anywhere else in the Anglosphere.

Anonymous said...

It's like for many many centuries, the killing of Christ by Jews and the killing of Christians by pagan heathens became eternalized and de-historicized. So, ALL Jews were blamed for killing the Messiah no matter how much time passed and no matter how many Jews were killed by Christians. And even after Christians gained total power, they continued to revive the story of evil pagans feeding Christians to lions, and that filled Christians with the righteous rage to persecute and kill pagan heathens forever. It didn't matter that the Christians were the oppressors and pagan were now the victims. Since Christian victimhood and pagan villainhood had been eternalized regardless of historical development, Christian violence against pagans was always seen as victims attacking villains.

And yet for all this abuse, jews and pagans never bothered to leave and go elsewhere. It's reminiscent of how during apartheid South Africa was flooded with immigrants--sure, the whites are evil and oppressive and all, but the countries they build are just so darn nice!

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_the_slave_trade_(antisemitic_canard)

I thought wiki entries are supposed to be objective. not when it comes to Jews.
The article contradicts itself.

It says:

"Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery.[4][5][6][7] They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, shipowners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades.[8]"

Far fewer slaves because there were far fewer Jews. But what about in per capita terms?

Later it says:

"The role of Jewish converts to Christianity (New Christians) and of Jewish traders was momentarily significant in Brazil[40] and the Christian inhabitants of Brazil were envious because the Jews owned some of the best plantations in the river valley of Pernambuco, and some Jews were among the leading slave traders in the colony.[41] Some Jews from Brazil migrated to Rhode Island in the American colonies, and played a significant but non dominant role in the 18th-century slave trade of that colony, but this sector accounted for only a very tiny portion of the total human exports from Africa.[42]"

'No major' or 'continuing' in the new world but then 'significant' and 'some jews were leading traders' in Brazil, the biggest receiving nation of black slaves.

So, Jews are clean because their role was not 'major'? So, if it was 49%, no problem?
And 'no continuing'? Well, Brits quit the slave trade too, so it wasn't 'continuing' either. If anything, slavery continues to this day in africa and parts of india.

And notice that instead of focusing on Jewish oppression of blacks, wiki makes a comment on how Christians were envious of Jewish slavers. i.e. even Jewish slavers were victims of antisemitism. Poor poor babies.

Lol.

wiki says:

"Jews were the chief traders in the segment of Christian slaves at some epochs[14] and played a significant role in the slave trade in some regions."

Eh? But didn't wiki say Jews played no special role in the middle ages?
I guess as long as jews were chief traders during 'some' epochs and 'some' regions, it doesn't really count.
yeah, since jews are powerful in 'some' regions like the US--like ny, la, chicago, miami, sf, etc--, they aren't really powerful in america. that would be an antisemitic canard. rotfl.

Anonymous said...

Abbie Hoffman wrote 'steal this book'.

DU should be called 'flashmob this movie'.

I mean how dare 'white' hollywood rake in all that cash from poor oppressed negroes by feeding them fantasy? negroes should be allowed to get in for free and get free popcorn(and skittles in honor of trayvon martin). if not, let the negroes burn down white-owned theaters.

Steve Sailer said...

I don't mind the Arclight Hollywood, I just hate the Arclight Sherman Oaks.

Anononymous said...

"So, even if blacks were to become masters over enslaved whites, blacks would still feel the righteous rage to beat and kill whites."


If blacks are anti-white its because they've absorbed propaganda made by self-hating Europeans who want to punish their own kind using whatever pretext is convienent. You will note that Mr. Tarantino is a clean-shaven white guy with male-pattern baldness. Blacks will absorb his propaganda alongside whites. Whites want to see blacks get revenge more than blacks want to get revenge.

Youtube interview Another link
Heres a clip of Samuel L. Jackson demanding that SWPL white interviewer say "the enn word". Interviewer refuses several times, and Jackson forcefully demands that he says it like he is performing an exorcism . Interviewer refuses to say it as if he is a witch trying to recite The Lord's Prayer.

It all starts with Candide:
"This is the price at which you eat sugar in Europe."

Anonymous said...


Boo said...
The complaints about killing white slave owners is a bit over the top. Who cares what happens to the white slave owners?

George Washington owed 317 slaves.

Thomas Jefferson owned 163 slaves.

Anonymous said...

Agreed 6'5 white men (especially the ones with Nordic looks who get sucked up to by everyone) rarely get the physical scariness

I don't even bother trying to be conservative around uber-tall white men because they never get it.

Anonymous said...

You mean there's a theater in this country that won't allow latecomers in so they can disturb the patrons who bothered to show up on time? Count me in. My dreams have come true.

I often come "late" for movies so that I don't have to watch (most of) the commercials. If the commercials are so important to you, why don't you stay at home and watch them on tv?

As to Django, has anyone in the mainstream media worried that it might inspire black-on-white attacks? I'd guess not. Yet they said that Gibson's Jesus movie would cause pogroms… It's obvious which is more likely.

Alpha Dog said...

At the movie theater where I watched Django Unchained, blacks cheered loudly whenever Jaime Foxx shot a white slaver. Granted, the movie made every white slaver out to be a sadistic, cruel person with no redeemable qualities, so I guess I'd didn't feel too bad when they died...but the glee with which the black moviegoers cheered the deaths of whites on screen was a bit off putting.

Did anyone else experience this at the movie theater they were at?

Anonymous said...

I dont understand why white people are complaining when they exterminated close to 100 million native americans. Where was the outrage when europeans were commiting genocide in the americas?

Gilbert Ratchet said...

Does no one else think that this is JUST A MOVIE?! You identify with the HERO no matter what his color. You cheer when kills the bad guy because he's a BAD GUY.

Nostalgic Futurist said...

Even disregarding the black-white issue, I thought it was a pretty bad/bland film, with cartoonish characters, among Tarantino's worst. The klan scene was pathetic, was that supposed to be funny? Hard to understand its success, except that Americans will see anything with lots of violence and "badass" characters, and anything that is sold as "cool" by the media.

Aging Hag said...

@Simon in London,

What you went through as an adult is what every white kid in America goes through growing up. I'm past 50 and it never changes; just goes through troughs and crests. I had the same traumatic experience you had in Detroit - but many times in many places. It's particularly horrible in the workplace, and the worst perps are sour, vicious black women, often but not always obese, who hate white women as a class. When one of these characters is against you, singles you out for the treatment, you might as well leave.

From my perspective this is all coming from the black side. If I were living on Mt. Olympus I'd be more detached but I'm not, I'm just an average Josephine trying to make a living. And yet according to the prevailing narrative I'm a plantation slave owner? No, I just have straight hair and blue eyes, and that's why they hate me.

I am counting the days to my retirement, when I can move to a Whitopia.

Anonymous said...

"and mayans killed lots of folks but not like in apocalypto--aztecs did that."

Wrong. You sound like a baby boomer. Students were indeed instructed by the school system up until the 80's that the Mayans were a relatively benign civilization. That went out the window with modern archeological discoveries that showed insane blood lust built into the culture.

Anonymous said...

I'm descended from northerners (an ancestor rode with Sherman in the Ohio cavalry) and Ellis Island-era Middle Easterners. The idea that I should feel some sort of racial solidarity toward Southern white slavers is absurd. It's also why I have no patience with the idea of collective white guilt.

Michal said...

Maybe Tarantino will show more courage with his next movie. Here's how he describes it in an interview with Henry Louis Gates jr. for The Root.

"Quentin Tarantino: I don't know exactly when I'm going to do it, but there's something about this that would suggest a trilogy. My original idea for Inglourious Basterds way back when was that this [would be] a huge story that included the [smaller] story that you saw in the film, but also followed a bunch of black troops, and they had been f--ked over by the American military and kind of go apes--t. They basically -- the way Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and the Basterds are having an "Apache resistance" -- [the] black troops go on an Apache warpath and kill a bunch of white soldiers and white officers on a military base and are just making a warpath to Switzerland."

Making movies where the bad guys are German soldiers during WWII or white slave owners is one thing but it would be interesting to see if white audiences are ready to cheer on blacks slaughtering the Greatest Generation.

Michal said...

Other QT stuff:

- the character Tarantino played in Django was apparently South African, not Australian

- in this interview with NPR Tarantino talks about his childhood (his mom "dated" Wilt Chamberlain)

- guess what was the initial idea that ultimately became Django Unchained:

"In 2006, when Tarantino sat down to write the script for Death Proof, his contribution to Grindhouse, the first scene he came up with revolved around the tale of Jody the Grinder, a character from black folklore with, as Tarantino put it, "the biggest dick." Jody, so the story goes, was perhaps a bit too generous with his anatomical endowment. When his master finally caught Jody in bed with both the master's wife and his daughter, that was it for Jody.

Post-hanging, Jody ended up in hell. "He met the devil, fucked the devil, and the devil sent him back to Earth, with a curse to walk the Earth for eternity, fucking white women," Tarantino says today, laughing."

Talk about the formative power of childhood.

peterike said...

Tarantino's psychosis explained at last.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201301/tarantino-says-his-mom-dated-wilt-chamberlain

Tarantino: “It was almost like a sitcom, the way we lived in the 70s. Because [my mom] was in her 20s, she was hot, alright, she was a hot white girl. Her best friend was named Jackie, and she was a hot black girl. Her other best friend, Lillian, was a hot Mexican girl. And they lived in this, like, swinging singles apartment with me."

Gross: "What impact did that have on you?"

Tarantino: "It was the ’70s, and I lived with these three hip single ladies, all always going out on dates all the time, dating football players and basketball players ...”

Gross: "Professional ones?"

Tarantino: “Oh yeah she dated Wilt Chamberlain. She's one of the thousands."

Anonymous said...

lincoln and spielberg freed the blacks

some german guy and tarry freed django

obama is unchained for second term



Anonymous said...

20 yrs ago I saw "Menace II Society" among a mixed race audience in Tucson(!). The depiction of the gratuitous slaying of the Asian convenience store owners during an armed robbery was hard for me to watch (realistic, and not sacralized a la Quentin T) but it was met by laughter and cheering among a certain segment in the theater.

anony-mouse said...

Except for his first, all Tarantino films have had two word titles.

Coincidence or is there a reason?

Anonymous said...

"But that film, which I found quite enjoyable (it would likely make my Top Ten for 2012 along with 21 Jump Street, Savages, and maybe Get the Gringo, Safety Not Guaranteed, and The Master)."

I think the only 2012 films I saw were prometheus and damsels in distress.

pro had 4 or 5 great scenes but was pretty stupid overall.

damsels is some kind of masterpiece. one of the most singular achievements in comedy.

Anonymous said...

'white guilt' is like myth of sisyphus or sissy-pussy white male.

no matter how many times we say "we've come a long way"--even with black prez--, the boulder rolls back down the hill, and we gotta start all over again. According to liberals, america is forever stuck in Reconstruction period or at best in the 1950s.

those who control the past control the future.

but white southerners played this game for 100 yrs too. they'd made themselves the 'eternal victims' of yankees in the civil war and were thus blind to their own wrongs. they were the forever victims of northern whites and negroes.

all peoples mythologize a time in history to morally justify whatever they do. chinese fixate on opium wars and imperialism forever. never mind brits did great things in hong kong. never mind chinese were crueler to one another. all that matters is justification of chinese rage by forever mythologizing 19th century imperialism--though it did help a rotting china to wake up and eventually overthrow the manchus.

in a way, however, films like birth of a nation and django unchained are more 'honest'--at least in racial emotions--than feel-good BS like gone with wind or lincoln.

Truth said...

"Is that the commenter "Truth"?"

No, in the Albuquerque Journal I said "N-" not "black person."



"Slavery by Europeans in America was a lot more laid back. Gone With the Wind would be a more realistic depiction."

Comment of the YEAR!

Truth said...

", I would sooner pay money to see it than I would "The Help". It's probably less offensive."

Well what are you waiting, for, Grasshopper? And take the Missus. You know she's tired of listening to you complain about blacks for 40 years anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Me and my son were the only visible Mexicans in the joint (Hollywood). "

Wow. Mexican angelenos are Steve Sailer readers, very good. It never occurred to me Steve´s favorite demographic to write about actually reads him.

Hispanics are so invisible maybe Steve himself didn´t even think about the possibility of Mexican readers.

Part of the reason Mexicans are so invisible might also be them not participating in american culture. It kind of goes both ways.

Anonymous said...

/Jews_and_the_slave_trade_(antisemitic_canard)

I get the feeling the scots irish go so over the top with snuffing out any criticism of them (even truthful criticism) that they're just adding fire to an pressure cooker ready to explode.

Anonymous said...

If anything, slavery continues to this day in africa and parts of india.
and israel remains the center of the sex slave trade, which preys almost entirely on fair haired christian women. EXACTLY how they behaved during when the Ottomans ruled.

Anonymous said...

The complaints about killing white slave owners is a bit over the top. Who cares what happens to the white slave owners?
i notice you said white slave owners.. could be justified in killing black slave owners too?

Anonymous said...

So jews being dis proportionally involved in the slave trade is an 'antisemitic canard' ...is pointing out they were disproportionaly involved in the civil rights movement antisemitic too?

Lion of the Blogosphere said...

As far as I can tell, Hispanics like the same movies as working-class whites. Movies like Paul Blart, Mall Cop.

Anonymous said...

"but it was met by laughter and cheering among a certain segment in the theater"

I saw that film at midnight showing. I heard the same reaction. It became a kind of badass cult movie among blacks. white liberals were watching it for its 'serious' message about violence, but blacks thought it was a riot. But blacks were cheering wildly when blacks got killed too. I heard so many 'dangs' whenever someone got shot.
DANG!! DANG!! It got so wild that I began to enjoy the violence too. When over a 100 Negroes are shouting dang when a negro gets shot--and lots of negroes get shot--, it's hard not to get into the spirit.
And I remember when I saw the rerun of ENTER THE DRAGON in 1979 at a city theater with lots of blacks, whites, hispanics, etc. When Jim Kelly got his ass whupped by some iron-clawed chinese dude, the place was about to erupt in a riot. Not because blacks were angry but because they thought it was so cool to see someone get whupped. blacks were laughing and going, 'dat chinese mothafuc*a done kicked Jim Kelly's ass!!' 'whupped his ass good!'

Blacks are just mindless about violence. I recall seeing SUGAR HILL with a mostly black audience. It's the gangster film with Wesley Snipes, one that Ebert compared with the works of Shakespeare(lol).
Samlet?

Anyway, there was a scene where a thug was beating up a black woman, and the audience were hooting and hollering at da ho getting whupped.
But when the ho turns the tables and hits the guy in the nuts or something, the crowd was going crazy too.
So, all this hooting and hollering had nothing to do about right or wrong. It was just the fun spectacle of seeing people get whupped.
I heard an Oakland teacher took a bunch of black kids to see SCHINDLER'S LIST and the kids were going wild. It had nothing to do with antisemitism. Black kids just thought it was mofo badass to be whupping and killing people.

And I heard in Africa, the real-life torture and murder of Samuel Doe sold like hotcakes. It was da bomb. Africans ate it up like Idi Amin ate up whupping people left and right. It's really about a black will to power than anything else. Blacks, being naturally more impulsive and wild, just loves to watch people get whupped.

http://articles.philly.com/1991-02-13/news/25774895_1_tapes-doe-prince-yormie-johnson

and africans love stuff like this:

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE. NOT FOR SENSITIVE VIEWERS.

http://vimeo.com/50947529

It's AFricanism Unleashed.

Anonymous said...

So jews being dis proportionally involved in the slave trade is an 'antisemitic canard' ...is pointing out they were disproportionaly involved in the civil rights movement antisemitic too?

You can praise non-whites as a group, you just can't criticize them.

Anonymous said...

I dont understand why white people are complaining when they exterminated close to 100 million native americans. Where was the outrage when europeans were commiting genocide in the americas?

Well, they didn't. There were nowhere near 100 million people in the Americas before Columbus, and most of the victims of European conquest died due to contagious diseases which the Europeans had no idea that were bringing over. But there was nevertheless outrage at the treatment of native Americans by Europeans -- check out Bartolomé de las Casas, for example.

not a hacker said...

For Simon in London and others, I repeat my conversation with 5 middle-eastern cab drivers in Berkeley in 2003:

What do you think of our black people?

CD 1: There's something wrong with those people.

CD 2:

Anonymous said...

I think blacks and Italian(and Italian-Americans) have a more instinctive take on power than Anglos do.

Since black Africans evolved in hot, dangerous, and wild Africa and because Italians developed in messy, corrupt, and divided Italian peninsula--invading and invaded by everyone under the sun--, they failed to develop a moral/idealistic concept of power. Machiavelli came from Italy. Italians were highly cultured but also very aware of the problems of power in Italy that was between Europe, Middle East, and Africa. So, Italians and blacks are instinctively less morally judgmental(at least earnestly) and more into power as a game. Though blacks do holler about JUSTICE, it's something they picked up from Anglo-Americans. But in their core emotions, blacks are really animated by POWER than right or wrong. It's the Do the Fight Thing than Do the Right thing.

Consider MEAN STREETS. Its worldview is 'everyone gets hurt', and that's that. It's just how the world is, so you gotta play the cards right to survive and win. Why doesn't a guy wanna pay another guy? Because he's a 'mook'. What does it mean? Nothing.
And consider the guys in RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS, and CASINO. It's about the game of power, not about good vs bad. Compare Scorsese's machivellian view of the world with John Sayles anglo-moral view of the world. LONE STAR is about right vs wrong. So is MATEWAN. They idealize power into a conflict of right vs wrong. Robert Redford is the same way. But Scorsese and Coppola(and Puzo) of the GODFATHER were more about the game of power. Whoever is sharper, more ruthless, and more strongwilled wins, and that's that. Indeed, GODFATHER even projects this view of power onto Anglo-America and says 'we are all part of the same hypocrisy'. Because Anglo-Americans weren't perfectly moral, they are just as bad as Italian-Americans, and so whatever Italian-Americans did was okay since it was about power.

So, maybe it's fitting that spaghetti western is used as the basis for a fried chicken western. The traditional Anglo-American western was about good vs bad. Even the bad guys in Peckinpah's film wrestle with good vs bad. Pike Bishop in The Wild Bunch is racked with guilt over having abandoned Deke Thorton and Angel. He feels he must do the right thing, redeem himself.
In contrast, the dollars trilogy really has no good guys. It's bad guys vs bad guys, except some bad guys are worse than other bad guys. Good, Bad, Ugly is totally nihilist. Though Blondie and Tuco have some soft qualities, they are really in it for the game, for the money. And that's all that counts. They are gangster westerns. Traditionally, westerns were anglo-american morality tales and gangster films were ethnic-outcast rebel movies where morality didn't matter; what mattered power and you got it any way you could. Spaghettis gangsterized the westerns. So, despite DU's moralism, it's really about the game of power. (Spaghettis also marxized westerns, but that just seemed like a ruse to justify all the fun nihilism. I mean what kind of real revolutionary would spend time watching 100s of spaghettis?)

Similarly with sexuality, Anglo-American moralized sexuality but Jewish-America viewed sex as a game of power. Anglo-American liberalism(at least traditionally)wanted blacks to become good married folks with moral values, but Jewish liberalism wanted blacks to go wild and excite the white boys and girls into kneeling before the masterful negro. And Jewish shrinks toyed with white minds about their 'repressions'. White patients were told that they could only find sexual liberation... by coming under the mind-control of Jewish doctors and scientists.

Jews also have an instinctive view of power though Jews have intellectualized this instinct more than others. David Mamet's films are about the game of power. Smart wins, dumb loses, and that's that. Also, HOMICIDE seems to say that, when push comes to shove, what really matters is Jewish power for Jews.

Anonymous said...

There are three kinds of views of power: order-power, instinct-power, and moral-power.

Order-power was like in feudal Japan and militarist Germany. It wasn't heavy on good vs bad but based on social hierarchy and order. Power was wielded and controlled by the state and tight social organization. It could be ruthlessly effective, but the danger was that when the system fell apart, people were lost as individuals since they'd gotten so used to being led and guided by superior power. They didn't know how to think morally as individuals, and they lacked an instinctive sense of power. A samurai who belongs to a clan knows his place and what he must do. Not because he's moral but because he's part of an order. But outside such an order as a masterless samurai, he is confused and lost. As such, he might slip into nihilism, and postwar Japan made some very nihilistic films in the late 60s and 70s, some of them horribly gross.
And Germans were especially lost after WWI since they didn't know how to be free as individuals--though to be sure, the depression made things much worse.

Instinct-power arises in a world where people have come to distrust the order. Order is corrupt, inefficient, clannish, inept, and/or hardly exists. So, people develop an instinctive sense of power. They know they gotta play the game of power on a daily basis to 'survive' or 'get ahead'. So, Italians became famous liars and opportunists. And blacks are like that, though maybe more for racial than cultural reasons(as Africans evolved in hot dangerous africa with tons of lions and hyenas and hostile tribes). So, paradoxically, Italians and blacks feel much hostility due to their mutual respect. They instinctively understand one another: in the end, it's not about right or wrong but the game of power.

Anglos and Anglo-Americans developed a system of moral-power where individuals and communities were expected to uphold the ideals of right and wrong. Though Anglo-Americans weren't always so nice, their ideals paved the way for greater social reforms on the basis of making the world into a better place. Thus, power wasn't just a game of power or something to be imposed by the superior order. Rather, power had to be a moral guide and be shaped by moral values. It was a good system, but as Wasps lost their respect and status in America, it seems like we're governed by the instinctive power shenanigans of Jews, blacks, and others. Of course, there's a lot of talk of justice, but Jews and blacks act in bad faith. This cynical form of power may Italianize the USA, in which case we may have to rely on a neo-order-power of statism to curtail our freedoms since Americans, as cynical opportunists, can no longer be trusted to do the right thing and must be watched and controlled all the time. Enter the drones to watch the drones.

Anonymous said...

There are three kinds of views of power: order-power, instinct-power, and moral-power.

Order-power was like in feudal Japan and militarist Germany. It wasn't heavy on good vs bad but based on social hierarchy and order. Power was wielded and controlled by the state and tight social organization. It could be ruthlessly effective, but the danger was that when the system fell apart, people were lost as individuals since they'd gotten so used to being led and guided by superior power. They didn't know how to think morally as individuals, and they lacked an instinctive sense of power. A samurai who belongs to a clan knows his place and what he must do. Not because he's moral but because he's part of an order. But outside such an order as a masterless samurai, he is confused and lost. As such, he might slip into nihilism, and postwar Japan made some very nihilistic films in the late 60s and 70s, some of them horribly gross.
And Germans were especially lost after WWI since they didn't know how to be free as individuals--though to be sure, the depression made things much worse.

Instinct-power arises in a world where people have come to distrust the order. Order is corrupt, inefficient, clannish, inept, and/or hardly exists. So, people develop an instinctive sense of power. They know they gotta play the game of power on a daily basis to 'survive' or 'get ahead'. So, Italians became famous liars and opportunists. And blacks are like that, though maybe more for racial than cultural reasons(as Africans evolved in hot dangerous africa with tons of lions and hyenas and hostile tribes). So, paradoxically, Italians and blacks feel much hostility due to their mutual respect. They instinctively understand one another: in the end, it's not about right or wrong but the game of power.

Anglos and Anglo-Americans developed a system of moral-power where individuals and communities were expected to uphold the ideals of right and wrong. Though Anglo-Americans weren't always so nice, their ideals paved the way for greater social reforms on the basis of making the world into a better place. Thus, power wasn't just a game of power or something to be imposed by the superior order. Rather, power had to be a moral guide and be shaped by moral values. It was a good system, but as Wasps lost their respect and status in America, it seems like we're governed by the instinctive power shenanigans of Jews, blacks, and others. Of course, there's a lot of talk of justice, but Jews and blacks act in bad faith. This cynical form of power may Italianize the USA, in which case we may have to rely on a neo-order-power of statism to curtail our freedoms since Americans, as cynical opportunists, can no longer be trusted to do the right thing and must be watched and controlled all the time. Enter the drones to watch the drones.

Anonymous said...

We often hear... blacks are the way they are because of 300 yrs of slavery. But if the past determines the present, wouldn't 300,000 yrs of savagery in Africa affected blacks more than 300 yrs of slavery ever did?

If liberals argue that 300 yrs of slavery wiped out the influence of 300,000 yrs of wonderful and Edenic 'harmony with nature' that black Africans once enjoyed, why can't a century of expanding freedom wipe out the effects of 300 yrs of slavery?

White evil wiped out the influence of 300,000 yrs of black culture overnight, but white compassion can never ever wipe out the influence of 300 yrs of slavery? Makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

And here I was thinking Django would bomb (fail) because only blacks and some Hispanics would see it...

...never underestimate the suicidal tendencies of white Americans.

Seriously, I'm beginning to think you guys aren't going to be around much longer.

Anonymous said...

"I dont understand why white people are complaining when they exterminated close to 100 million native americans."

Estimates for Indians in North America range from 2 million to 10 million.

In Latin America, estimates range from 20 to 50 million. Some estimates say out of 50 million, 45 million were killed by disease. We'll never know for sure.
But remember that conquis are not white. They are 'people of color'. So, people of color done it.

Btw, is the inadvertent spread of disease 'genocide'? Technically no, but... I guess there are always buts.
If Chinese immigrants come here and accidentally spread a disease that killed off 90% of whites, I suppose that would piss us off.
But then Mongols accidentally or not spread Bubonic plague in Europe and Middle East that killed anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. So, should Mongols--and by extension all Asians--be guilty of 'genocide' of Europeans?

Some theorize that 'Asiatic' settlers who crossed from Asia to North America brought with them diseases that wiped out much of the native species of animals. So, should Indians be guilty of what their ancestors did?

Personally, I consider myself a Neandi by one drop rule. Folks like myself are 1 to 5% Neanderthal and my people were conquered and oppressed by 'out of africa' cromaggot genocidal killers. I deserve justice!!! Africa must pay!!

Anonymous said...

Tarantino: “Oh yeah she dated Wilt Chamberlain. She's one of the thousands."

So, tarry is like the son of mudonna.

Lol. Good to know that he respects his mother for being 'one of the thousands' of whores wilt used and disposed of.

Anonymous said...

I dont understand why white people are complaining when they exterminated close to 100 million native americans. Where was the outrage when europeans were commiting genocide in the americas?

The dying-off of native Americans was due to the importation of Old World diseases for which New World populations had no immunity.

Horrible as the epidemics were, they were the natural and inevitable result of Europeans developing ocean-going travel. They are as morally neutral as the Black Death, which no-one has ever blamed on Venetians, Byzantines, Ottomans, or anyone else in the chain of disease vectors. Plagues are just something that happened in the pre-modern world.

Where there were real atrocities, they were usually condemned at the time. For example, few atrocities have been condemned as thoroughly as the Spanish atrocities against the Central and South American natives. But these were already a byword for brutality in the 16th century.

They idea that whites have ignored such events until recently is a piece of modernist narcissism verging on cretinism.

Cennbeorc

Average Joe said...

If Tarantino was really courageous he would have made the slave owner Jewish.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. You sound like a baby boomer. Students were indeed instructed by the school system up until the 80's that the Mayans were a relatively benign civilization. That went out the window with modern archeological discoveries that showed insane blood lust built into the culture.

The Aztecs were genuinely more slaughtersome than the Mayans, but the Mayans would do horrible things like sacrificing a victim over days or weeks, removing his lower jaw, say, one day and moving on to other body parts later.

I wonder how they avoided fatal infections among the half-sacrificed? There is probably some Ancient Wisdom here that we should learn from.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

"Its a black man killing white people in masses. I will pay to go see that any time".

Thanks buddy. Nice to know how you feel about us. Can't say i suspected otherwise.

Anonymous said...

If Tarantino was really courageous he would have made the slave owner Jewish.

Sure, make the villain a Jewish estate manager in 18th century Poland.

Plenty of dramatic possibilities there.

Cennbeorc

Anonymous said...

The complaints about killing white slave owners is a bit over the top. Who cares what happens to the white slave owners? Also, all of the various Django movies that have been made over the years were about revenge killing, so I don't see how this version of Django is all that different.


Priceless.

Anonymous said...

" idiocratic future, and who wants to think about that?"

Did you see that Popular Mechanics has Idiocracy as one of the best scifi films of all time.

Maxwell said...

"I'm descended from northerners (an ancestor rode with Sherman in the Ohio cavalry) and Ellis Island-era Middle Easterners. The idea that I should feel some sort of racial solidarity toward Southern white slavers is absurd."

-The more relevant question is whether non-whites will give a damn. You see, all whites have legitimate reasons why they don't deserve to be treated as second class citizens because of US slavery. The most obvious blanket reason that applies to all whites is that no one alive today had any part in it, nor was anyone alive today a US slave. But at the core, its not really about facts, logic, truth or treating people fairly. For non-whites, ultimately its a way to gain power and wealth from whites that they couldn't build for themselves through exploiting central pillars of what made white men great- rational logic and fair play.

Anononymous said...

But then Mongols accidentally or not spread Bubonic plague in Europe and Middle East that killed anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. So, should Mongols--and by extension all Asians--be guilty of 'genocide' of Europeans?


Then theres the Plague of Justinian in 541 (and continued on as a pandemic) that killed 1/4+ of eastern Mediterranean population. Constantinople had 40% die. Weakened state allowed barbarians to invade. Germanic Lombards invade Italy against plague-weakened Byzantium. Arab conquests happen a few generations later.


Plague of Justinian 541–542 AD

Procopius, ... recorded that at its peak the plague was killing 10,000 people in Constantinople daily, ... He noted that because there was no room to bury the dead, bodies were left stacked in the open.
...
Constantinople ... killed perhaps 40% of the city's inhabitants.
...
One high estimate is that the Plague of Justinian killed as many as 25 million people across the world.

Anonymous said...

I was watching A CLOCKWORK ORANGE again, and it's like the white race had undergone a Ludovico or Judovico Treatment.

In the film, Alex is a bad kid, but he's not pure evil. He has good taste in music--he's certainly more intelligent than his droogs--, and everyone has a need for self-preservation as a defensive mechanism.

When Alex undergoes the Ludovico treatment, not only is his evil side punished but his entire being. So, he's not only not able to attack others but he's unable to protect himself from others. Even defensive/self-preservationist violence isn't allowed due to conditioning. He can't fight for legit reasons either.

And he feels sick even when he listens to good stuff like Beethoven's 9th. He must be punished even for the kind of music he liked.

In a way, the white man is in the same state after the Judovico Treatment. It's not enough for whites to admit they historically did some wrongs. Whites must not only be more careful with their use of violence but not be violent at all to protect themselves against black crime, brown invasion, and etc. (Liberals attack 'stand your ground' laws in Florida, and say that whites should either just accept the beating or walk away with their tails behind their legs. Funny how liberals say whites forced blacks in the past to be sappy uncle toms without pride, but now, liberals say that when whites are threatened by blacks, whites should just bow their heads like white uncle toms and slink away. If blacks were threatened by white thugs, would liberals say that blacks should just bow their heads, shuffle, and walk away?)

Whites must not only purge themselves of radical nasty anti-semitism but feel sick and self-loathing at ANY thought that Jews are anything less than perfect.
So, any negative feelings about blacks, Jews, gay, and illegals--even when justified or valid--makes white people feel sick. It makes them feel 'odious', 'noxious', and 'toxic'. And when they feel such feelings--and even white liberals feel such feelings from time to time when confronted with reality--, they feel sick(like Alex after Ludovico treatment), and so they lash out at 'racist' whites to feel better again. If blacks attack a white liberal, the latter feels sick to think, 'blacks are rotten thugs', so he thinks, 'blacks act his way because 'racist' whites still oppress them and don't give them a fair chance.'

Through use of tv, movies, music, education, and advertising, and etc, the Jewish elites have made us associate certain feelings and attitudes--even when justified--with pure evil. So, not only do we loathe Nazism but we loathe even our knowledge that Jews run Hollywood. NO!!!! WHITES run Hollywood, not Jews. Whew, I feel better now.

And if you oppose 'gay marriage', why you feel like an 'odious', 'noxious' and 'toxic' 'homophobe'!! It's not enough for you to be tolerant of gays. If you harbor ANY negative feelings about gays, you feel like some sick pervert who needs to be purged of this 'homophobic' sin.
Media filled us with images of happy saintly gays, whereas anyone who opposes the gay agenda is an ugly and disgusting wife beating scumbag and prolly a 'racist' and 'anti-semite' too.

Anonymous said...



Through use of tv, movies, music, education, and advertising, and etc, the Jewish elites have made us associate certain feelings and attitudes--even when justified--with pure evil. So, not only do we loathe Nazism but we loathe even our knowledge that Jews run Hollywood. NO!!!! WHITES run Hollywood, not Jews. Whew, I feel better now.

And if you oppose 'gay marriage', why you feel like an 'odious', 'noxious' and 'toxic' 'homophobe'!! It's not enough for you to be tolerant of gays. If you harbor ANY negative feelings about gays, you feel like some sick pervert who needs to be purged of this 'homophobic' sin.
Media filled us with images of happy saintly gays, whereas anyone who opposes the gay agenda is an ugly and disgusting wife beating scumbag and prolly a 'racist' and 'anti-semite' too.

As I recall, Alex in the book isn't shown footage of Hitler and Nazis, but Kubrick put that in the movie. Alex sees Nazis to Beethoven's 9th, and his body/emotions comes to associate Beethoven with Nazi evil.

Was Kubrick saying that after WWII, Germans were not only cured of Nazism but made to feel sick about everything German? I mean what does Beethoven have to do with Hitler? What does much of German culture have to do with the holocaust? But Germans were made to feel that their entire culture and history led to WWII and the Holocaust. So, even enjoying German culture is to be Hitler's Willing Executioner.

Germans got it worse than other whites, but it seems like all whites have been conditioned to feel very very sick if they even harbor any sense of pride or self-preservation of their culture.
They were not only purged of their evil but of everything associated with positive feeling for their own culture and the necessity of defending their own culture/race/land.

Anonymous said...

It looks like the comment about killing white people has been removed from the article comments section. At least, I can't find it. Always useful to take screenshots of these things.

Anononymous said...

Bubonic plague ...
should Mongols ... be guilty of 'genocide' of Europeans?


When it happens to Europeans, plague is a good thing:

Wiki: Bubonic plague
"Because the plague killed so many of the working population, wages rose and some historians have seen this as a turning point in European economic development."

See, there's a shortage of serfs, so they have to be paid more and be treated better. Might have even have led to the Renaissance.

The Native-Americans lost an even greater percent of population, wages would have increased even more.

Even the post-plague invasions are beneficial when it happens to Europeans. Islamic conquest brought algebra and awesome Moopish architecture to Spain.


P.S.

On second thought, a rise in wages would have hurt the feudal landlords, so the plague was a bad thing.

Anonymous said...

Detection of evil depends on the prevailing terminology. For example, one of the big evils that many people used to aware of was 'sexism'.

In my semi-feminist period in the mid 80s, I went to a bunch of college leftist/feminist sessions, and we were trained to see 'sexism' everywhere. Cosmetic ads, tv commercials, rock videos, Marilyn Monroe movies, and etc. I had a college professor who used to show us movies and ask, "what's wrong with this?" And then she's say "IT'S MISOGYNOUS!" So, we got into the habit of finding sexism everywhere. And boy, did we find a lot of male chauvinist evil everywhere.

And I attended a pro-sandinista gathering where some old feminist-marxist showed us slides of the Nicaraguan revolution and praised how their propaganda posters don't have sexist images of women.
So, at one time, liberals were finding 'sexism' as an evil everywhere.
But for some reason, with the rise of rap, hip hop, skank culture, Paglia feminism, neo-slut empowerment, interracist porn, and etc, the business of finding 'sexism' went out the window. So, even though our society is more 'sexist' than ever, no one notices. I can't imagine the Marilyn Monroe status going up in chicago in the 70s and 80s. Not only prudes but feminists and liberals would have howled! But not a squeak today.

It's like feminists came to be ashamed of their 'sexual hysteria' in the 70s and 80s and have adopted a new strategy of skankery where even well-educated women now go around yelling 'vagina'.

When we read a book or watch a movie or listen to music, we can find all sorts of evils: 'militarism', 'decadence', 'degeneracy', 'greed', 'vanity', 'barbarism', 'savage-ism', 'anti-white-ism', 'anti-westernism', 'anti-male-ism', anti-americanism', 'anti-liberty-ism', 'satanism', 'anti-free-speech-ism', 'anti-God-ism', 'Islamophobia', 'perversion', etc.

But the only evils that most Americans are aware of are 'antisemitism', 'racism'--mostly concerning blacks as we don't giver a crap about Palestinians--, 'homophobia', and maybe 'misogyny' just during election season.

So, a book or movie can bash whites, males, Muslims, Asians, Europeans, Christianity, Russians, and etc and it can promote militarism(like TRANSFORMERS), but no one notices any 'evil'.
But if there's anything even slightly nasty about Jews, blacks, gays, etc, alarm bells go off in the mind of the reader or viewer.
It's like every article about T.S. Eliot mentions his grave sin of antisemitism. But surely other writers(including Jews) didn't like Germans, French, Chinese, Muslims, and etc, etc. But those biases are not detected as evils. It's like a Jewish friend of mine who whines about evil antisemitism but says the most bloodcurdling thing about Muslims. He opposed the Iraq War because Muslims are 'savages' who need to be controlled and beaten like animals by a tough guy like Hussein.

So, the mind detects evil based on how the mental alarm is set.
This is why even liberals are not truly liberal. If they were, they would be for Palestinian rights, but only 10% of Americans are favorable toward Pallies. It means even most liberals support Zionist oppression of Pallies. Their alarm bells have been set so that they'd feel more evil--'antisemitic'--if they favored Arabs over Jews EVEN WHEN JEWS ARE OPPRESSING ARABS.

Anonymous said...

Also, if liberals really look beyond race and creed and etc, they would be willing to vote for Muslim-American as president as they would a Jewish-American. But 98% of Americans say they'll vote for a Jew as president while only 2% say they'll vote for a Muslim for president. In other words, libs are just as anti-Muslim as cons.
And libs at one time said free speech is sacrosanct. Their alarm bells were set so that anyone who called for speech controls for the communal good was evil. But their alarm bells have been reset during the 90s so that many liberals now believe that free speech must only be correct speech. Free speech that allows 'hate' is evil. 'Hate' has been coded into their alarm bells, so that liberals now favor censorship over free speech if there's 'hate'.

So, how liberal are liberals? Most liberals do as they're conditioned and told to think, not how they think as free individuals.

Anonymous said...

"The complaints about killing white slave owners is a bit over the top."

Okay, killing bad people is good. (Never mind that people in the past didn't share our moral views. I supposed we should have a movie where ancient Hebrews are killed for being 'homophobes'.) Since killing bad people is good, can we have lots of movies about killing black rapists. Hey, didn't white guys in BIRTH OF A NATION kill a would-be black rapist? So, what was so objectionable?
And why did liberals get so worked up about the Wilie Horton? It didn't attack all black. Only black rapists.

Anononymous said...

"there was nevertheless outrage at the treatment of native Americans by Europeans -- check out Bartolomé de las Casas, for example."

Bartolomé de las Casas was ahead of his time. Black crime is just collective Divine punishment for sins committed by other peoples forefathers who had the same (lack of) colour as us.

From a review of Bartolomé de las Casas book The Historia:

It was Las Casas’s intention to reveal to Spain the reason for the misfortune that would inevitably befall her when she became the object of God’s punishment.


britannica.com: Bartolomé de Las Casas
1474-1566
"The Historia, which by his request was not published until after his death, is an account of all that had happened in the Indies just as he had seen or heard of it. But, rather than a chronicle, it is a prophetic interpretation of events. The purpose of all the facts he sets forth is the exposure of the “sin” of domination, oppression, and injustice that the European was inflicting upon the newly discovered colonial peoples. It was Las Casas’s intention to reveal to Spain the reason for the misfortune that would inevitably befall her when she became the object of God’s punishment.


Critical Essays: Bartolomé de Las Casas 1474–1566
During his lifetime, many Spanish nationalists and governmental officials characterized Las Casas as a traitor and a fanatic who should be publically reprimanded and whose writings should be banned.
...
In 1898, prior to the Spanish-American War, a translation of the Brief Account (entitled An Historical and True Account of the Cruel Massacre and Slaughter of 20,000,000 People in the West Indies by the Spaniards) was published in New York in an effort to arouse negative sentiments against Spaniards in Cuba. Some modern Spanish historians still characterize Las Casas as delusional and dangerous, but many others contend that his often exaggerated testimony and somewhat dubious statistics do not significantly lessen the value of either his analyses or his humanitarian principles.

James C. said...

"I was watching A CLOCKWORK ORANGE again, and it's like the white race had undergone a Ludovico or Judovico Treatment."

Its everywhere. I remember going on a trip to Philly recently, and seeing an exhibit of the 'President's House'. An archaeological dig had uncovered the foundations of a mansion that had housed: William Penn's grandson; President George Washington during the Constitutional Convention of 1787; President John Adams; and at one point, Benedict Arnold, and even was the headquarters for Gen William Howe of the British Army during the British occupation of Philadelphia.

You'd think all of that rich, important history of the heart of the founding of this country would be the focus of an exhibit built around the site, at least in a sane country. You'd be wrong- virtually the entire exhibit was about Washington's slaves, like his cook, Hercules, a runaway slave who was later granted freedom by Washington.

Anonymous said...

"It's also why I have no patience with the idea of collective white guilt."

You may have no interest in the collective white guilt racket but it sure has interest in you.

Anonymous said...

the AMC Hoffman Center in Alexandria, Va. is not a theater that "caters heavily to African-Americans" in general.

It is located in an office district in a city that is only 20% Black. I've been there a hundred times and never noticed a mix of patrons outside the city's overall demographic.

NOTA said...

Anon 5:48:

I wonder how many people the reporter had to ask to get just the quote he wanted. I'm guessing it was quite a few, since most people don't say crap like that even if they think it, which most people, not being psychopaths, don't most of the time.

Anon 8:38:

This is probably obvious, but when someone shows you a bunch of images from faraway cultures and wants you to say what's rigrht/wrong with them, their goal is almost always "educating" you about what you should know or believe about this culture. Sometimes they maybe right, sometimes wrong, but the goal is to convince you about stuff in your culture, not to expose you to interesting stuff from the bigger world.

Where are you getting your numbers about willingness to vote for a Muslim? This 2004 article was the first thing that came up in a quick search, and says that 38% of people said they wouldn't want to vote for a Muslim--more people would apparently refuse to vote for an atheist (52%). Tat's from 2004, but it's hard for me to imagine that the numbers have radically shifted since then.

NOTA said...

Glorifying killing people is nasty (though common as hell in our corrosive media). But I have to say, a slave killing his master or overseer is one murder I'd have a very hard time being sad about. Similarly, though death is tragic, I can't find many tears for the SS and KGB thugs who got killed during WW2, or for the death of Saddam and his nasty sons, or for the death of Gadafi, or for the next murderer to get executed (assuming he actually did the crime), or for the Khmer Rouge who died when the Vietnamese invaded.

It *should* be dangerous as hell to keep slaves. It's a better world when people won't do it, either because of fear of slave revolts, or fear that the British Navy will hang them if it catches then transporting slaves.

NOTA said...

Anon 11:27:

More to the point, ideological bounds on what can be discussed shapes peoples' thoughts, even peoole who think they're discounting those ideological bounds. Millions of smart people have thought about the implications of, say, big deficits or nuclear war, because discussing those things won't get you fired, blackballed, and shunned. Their open back-and-forth discussion allows a much more sensible picture of the world to come together than one person by himself can put together.

Even when everyone kind-of knows the party line is BS, if mentioning that unpalatable fact is a career-ender, we won't get the benefit of that back-and-forth discussion. The internet is lettng us do some end-runs around the traditional media's restriction, and so we can gather up a clearer picture of the world. That includes discarding ideas that aren't right, some of which violate PC bounds--when they couldn't be talked about openly, they couldn't really be debunked, just dismissed with a point and a sputter.

Anonymous said...

It's not just collective white guilt but ETERNAL white guilt.

Also, why is it 'white guilt' when most whites didn't take part in global imperialism. Poles, Russians, Czechs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, and etc didn't invade Asia, Latin America, Africa, and etc. But because of the term 'white guilt', all whites--with the exception of Jews and gays--must feel guilty.
And ALL non-whites must benefit from that guilt. So, it's not just descendants of black Americans who are favored by newly arrived African immigrants whose ancestors practiced slavery on a much larger scale than white southerners ever did.
So, a Polish-American must feel guilty toward a Nigerian-American and forever and ever.

What kind of bullshit is that?

Anonymous said...

Let's come up with the idea of 'collective white credit'.

Since whites brought upon the end of slavery, invented modern medicine, spread democracy, spread global prosperity, brought all sorts of technological innovations, improved lives of women, and etc, all whites must share and bask in collective, universal, and eternal white credit.

Anonymous said...

"Detection of evil depends on the prevailing terminology. For example, one of the big evils that many people used to aware of was 'sexism'."

So, we must come up with terms that make people aware of 'evils' of the left and non-whites.

How about Afro-brutalism? Once such term becomes commonly used, people will notice afro-brutalism in music, tv, movies, and etc.

How about homo-aristocratism or homo-elitism? The whole gay agenda is not mass-driven but has been foisted on the masses from above. And it's not about equality but about creating special favors for gays. 'Gay marriage' allows gays to twist and bend the meaning of marriage just to pander to their own snotty interests. So, all of us must submit to the gay meaning of marriage just to please gays.
It's like all of us having to go with 'same family marriage' because the incest lobby demands it. It's like the science community being forced to accept creationism because the fundamentalist lobby demands it.

How about bitchism? It'd be stupid feminists bitching and getting hysterical over just about anything. So, much bitchist evil to be found all over.

How about hypocritism? This is what liberal elites do with stuff like 'affirmative action' and section 8. They make middle class and poor whites pay for all the social costs while they themselves live in their nice safe communities.

Anonymous said...

Spielberg’s Lincoln: Plenty of Negroes, But Why No Jews?



A Viewer’s Guide to Spielberg’s Lincoln (Part 2)

by NOI Research Group

In his movie Lincoln, director Steven Spielberg presents a critical period of the Black Holocaust as he feels Blacks ought to understand it. But he is no historian. The Jewish Spielberg has meticulously filmed and archived the stories of Jewish Holocaust survivors for his Shoah Foundation in order to preserve the accuracy of their experiences. So why then is Spielberg so dreadfully senile in his representation of a time so important to Black Americans? Why, for instance, does he feel free to promote a fairy tale of the history of the Civil War and Black slavery, but suspiciously ignores the critical role played by his own Jewish people in the War Between the States, a war in which Jews were extremely prominent and consequential?
http://noirg.org/spielbergs-lincoln-plenty-of-negroes-but-why-no-jews/

Miserable Old Brit said...

Simon in London's experience was different from mine. When I've visited the US (NYC, SF, TX, VA and the South-West) the Black Americans I've encountered have mostly been pleasant and friendly. I've encountered very few truly obnoxious Americans, but they were all White (which may not be significant as so were most of the Americans I've met).
An enthusiastic review of DU in the British press said it's set before the Civil War and includes the KKK. Is that true? That would kill it for me. Do most people not know or not care?
Chinese people don't know all about the Opium Wars etc. I was talking to a highly-educated Chinese colleague who came from China as an adult and it emerged she'd heard of the Opium Wars but assumed it was the Japs who did it.

Anonymous said...

Almost all the whites who got killed in Django Unchained were really evil people doing really bad things, and no one should have felt remorse for them.The only whites killed in the film by Django who didn't deserve to be killed were the LeQuint Dickey Mining Co. employees (Tarantino, Michael Parks, and John Jarratt).

What all of you are missing is the influence of Karl May on Django Unchained - or at least the 1960s film adaptations of May's novels, such as Old Shatterhand, Winnetou, etc. Dr. King Schultz is inspired by Shatterhand, the German hero of May's novels, while Django is based on Winnetou, the Apache chief who is a hero in May's novels. In May's work, American whites are the "bad whites" while German whites are the "good whites"

Anonymous said...

"Almost all the whites who got killed in Django Unchained were really evil people doing really bad things, and no one should have felt remorse for them."

But they were not real people but the vilified figures of white power.
In anti-Jewish Nazi movies, good germans killed only 'bad' Jews. So, was that okay?

The bad whites in DU are more than bad individuals. they stand for archetypes of 'white evil'.

Anonymous said...

I saw Django on christmas night at the AMC Mercado Veinte in Santa Clara (between the Weinsteins and David Stern, who expanded Christmas Day basketball to span the entire day this year, there was plenty of areligious entertainment on offer). The crowd at the Mercado Veinte was about 55% hispanic, 40% asian, and here and there a caucasian couple would poke up out of the crowd.

The reaction to Django seemed pretty positive overall. While there was an appreciation of who the bad guys were, there was no lusty cheering as Django unloaded, even a bit of shock at the gore. But at the same time, there seemed little appreciation of the secondary message of the media elite guiding black men into violence, which was laced into the show, ironically or not, as if to make the point while avoiding the censors. I found the Lee Boyd Malvo moment especially eerie, and Django's bridle-less riding moment, fully unhinged, also produced a sick feeling. The dressage bit at the end called to mind Peter Sellers walking on water and must have had Spike Lee up in arms (Foxx's riding double was exceptional, as much in the mundane moments as the more difficult ones).

There were also some beautiful shots in the film, and some of the action was delivered very poignantly, but always with a wink, like, "I could make the whole film like this if I wanted to."

I think Tarantino deserves some credit for, at least indirectly, addressing the issue of "Jewish censorship and propaganda" in entertainment and encouraging black people and jews to get over rather than perpetually nurse their greivances, always dehumanizing white people in the process. The extreme and charicatured violence could also be viewed as a determination to reach a final destination for violent films in general. All the films since Kill Bill have been hyper-violent parodies of feminist and racial political correctness.

And one does wonder why and when it was that movies went from Clint Eastwood firing a few shots in the early seventies to Bruce Willis firing off hundreds in the 80s. No one would know this better than Tarantino.

Anonymous said...

Think Karl May. American whites - bad, nonwhites and Euro whites - good , in May's Western novels.

Don't know if Tarantino read May's works but he is certainly familiar with the Euro-westerns based on May's books made in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_May

http://www.karl-may-gesellschaft.de/index.php?seite=englisch&sprache=fremdsprachen

Steve Sailer said...

"What all of you are missing is the influence of Karl May on Django Unchained - or at least the 1960s film adaptations of May's novels"

Good point.

Truth said...

"they stand for archetypes of 'white evil'"

I've never seen an archetype sic an attack dog on somebody.

Anonymous said...

"I've never seen an archetype sic an attack dog on somebody."

I wish an archetype had done it to Michael Vick.