Mandingo

Not rated yet!
Director
Richard Fleischer
Runtime
2 h 07 min
Release Date
6 June 1975
Genres
History, Action, Romance, Drama
Overview
A slave owner in the 1840s trains one of his slaves to be a bare-knuckle fighter.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Counter Currents Staff3
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Django Unchained: Another Jewish Wet Dream
    (”Mandingo” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Django_Unchained_Poster

    1,691 words

    [1]German translation here [2]

    Quentin Tarantino’s last movie, Inglourious Basterds [3] (2007), tells the story of a group of American Jews who team up with a non-white (an Amerindian-white mix from Tennessee with an Italian name, like Tarantino himself), to torture, mutilate, and slaughter evil white men and women (Germans, Nazis) during World War II. ‘Terds, in short, is nothing but an elaborate fantasy of Jewish sadism and revenge. Tarantino’s producer, Lawrence Bender, told him, “As your producing partner, I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherfucker, because this movie is a fucking Jewish wet dream [4].” Lovely people.

    Tarantino’s latest movie, Django Unchained (2012) tells the story of a black former slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), who is trained as a bounty hunter by an itinerant German dentist, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Django and Schultz then try to locate and buy Django’s wife Broomhilda (sic). Once Broomhilda is discovered, Django goes on to slaughter countless evil whites: slave owners, their sisters, toothless inbred redneck morons, slave traders, and the horses they rode in on — apparently with exploding bullets, given the geysers of blood, severed limbs, and flying entrails that, aside from inducing nausea and nervous laughter, give the film a tiresome, farcical feel.

    Chattel slavery was an evil institution inflicted upon black slaves and free whites alike by America’s small, sociopathic capitalist class, which included such revered “Founding Fathers” as Presidents Washington and Jefferson, who, to advance the economic interests of their class, used a lot of high-flown twaddle about rights, freedom, and equality to get the rabble to fight and die in a war of secession from England.

    When America was founded, it was an overwhelmingly racially and culturally homogeneous country, but it was never really an organic community in which social inequalities had to justify themselves by serving the common good. Instead, it was a liberal society in which individuals, who possess “rights” that trump considerations of the common good, sought to enrich themselves by means that a decent society would not have permitted, including slavery.

    Ideally, America would have been a classical republican society with a broad middle class of self-employed farmers, tradesmen, craftsmen, and merchants. To prevent the loss of freedom that comes when a few wealthy men end up employing masses of poor men, enterprising individuals would have been kept in check, so that there would be few employers and few employees. Capitalism and inequality would, in short, have been subordinated to the common good.

    The second best option would have been the regulation of capitalism by a strong political alliance of independent smallholders and organized labor, with the aim of creating a genuinely organic republic. (The labor movement, in my opinion, is the one truly heroic chapter in American history.) Under such a system, slavery would have been abolished peacefully and bloodlessly, with compensation, as it was virtually everywhere else, and all blacks would have been repatriated to Africa to enhance the racial and cultural homogeneity that are the greatest blessings and strengths of any society. Large plantations would have been split up into small, independent farms. The people from the big houses would have learned to pick their own damn cotton.

    It would be wonderful to have a movie that dramatizes the true evils of slavery, and of capitalism more broadly, from a pro-worker, pro-smallholder point of view. But Django Unchained is not that movie. The truth about slavery was evil enough. One does not need to exaggerate or tell lies about it. But this movie is filled with ludicrous lies and just plain indifference to the truth.

    A title card informs us that the movie is set in 1858, “two years before the Civil War.” The Civil War, of course, began in 1861.

    In one scene, we see masked vigilantes on horseback, presumably the Ku Klux Klan, which was not founded until 1865.

    When Dr. Schultz learns that Django’s wife is named Broomhilda, he tells the story of Siegfried and Brünnhilde, incorporating elements of Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, the libretto of which had been written in 1852 but circulated only among Wagner’s friends. The two operas from which Dr. Schultz was borrowing, Die Walküre and Siegfried, premiered in 1870 in 1876 respectively.

    [5]At one point, we are ushered into the Cleopatra Club, a lavish brothel full of black whores. (It seems odd that white men would prefer black whores when white whores were plentiful.) The historical Cleopatra, the seventh of her name, may have been a bit of a whore, but she was a Macedonian Greek, not a black.

    The Cleopatra Club is decorated with busts of Queen Nefertiti, who lived 1,300 years before Cleopatra, and who was not black either. The particular bust that is reproduced, which is in the Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, was unearthed in Tel-el-Amarna in 1912.

    But why be pedantic, given that this movie is created by a consummate cynic for an audience of morons?

    In one of the salons of the Cleopatra Club, its owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is overseeing a “Mandingo fight” between two strong blacks. The fight does not take place in a ring, but just at one end of a room, surrounded by the chairs of spectators — an absurd, impractical, and unsafe arrangement, given that these men are fighting to the death. (There is no evidence that slave owners ever had such gladiatorial contests, by the way.)

    After a lot of grunting and some eye-gouging, Candie orders the victorious slave to dispatch his opponent with a claw hammer. Later Candie orders a runaway slave torn to pieces by dogs. Yes, this is a disgustingly sadistic movie: the Marquis de Sade meets Uncle Tom’s Cabin (a characterization I was saving for Mandingo [6] [1975], which now seems like a Jane Austen adaptation by comparison).

    The message of this movie to blacks is that white people are loathsome sadists and morons who should be killed with utmost brutality and dispatch. Louis Farrakhan described the movie as “preparation for race war.” White people have died because of this movie, just as white people have died because of the lies Anderson Cooper and other people in the media told about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Thus we should count ourselves fortunate that Django Unchained is so long and boring (at 2 hours and 45 minutes) that it puts insuperable demands on the average black attention span. (At least we’ll know for sure next summer, if babies start turning up with names like Broomhilde and Phrenology.)

    If Tarantino had merely wanted to whip up blacks into a murderous rage against whites, he would have made a very different movie. But Tarantino had quite another audience in mind. Tarantino wants an Oscar. He wants it bad. Thus Django Unchained is another Jewish wet dream. This is a movie calculated to appeal to Jewish hatred of white Americans. Specifically, Django Unchained is about the Jewish strategy of using blacks as biological weapons of mass destruction against whites. (Released on Christmas Day, so Jews could see it either before or after dinner at a Chinese restaurant.)

    The key to the filmmaker’s intent is that Christoph Waltz plays the character of Django’s partner, Dr. Schultz, as Jewish.

    When Dr. Schultz first appears, he is driving a little peddler’s wagon with a large, spring-mounted model of a tooth bobbing drolly on top. He is an itinerant dentist with a foreign accent. He is physically small and nonthreatening, with a shambling gait, and his arms and hands held close to his body. He is a real talker though, with a smooth patter and large vocabulary that the stupid, taciturn goyim find off-putting. But appearances are deceptive, because Dr. Schultz is actually a cold, calculating killer who employs complex subterfuges and a gun up his sleeve to get his way. He is a bounty-hunter, who prefers to bring them in dead. He likens his work to the slave trade: human flesh for cold, hard cash. But his wares can’t run away.

    Hateful fantasies about teaming up with blacks to harm whites are staples of the Jewish imagination. During the 2008 US presidential campaign, Sandra Bernhard warned Sarah Palin to stay away from the Jewish stronghold of New York City lest she be “gang-raped by my big black brothers”:

     

    During the 2012 US presidential campaign, Bill Maher warned whites not to vote for Mitt Romney because “Black people know who you are, and they will come after you”:

     

    But the black-Jewish alliance against whites goes far beyond the fantasies of psychopaths with media megaphones. It is an integral part of the Jewish community’s strategy for advancing its collective interests in America.

    As our own Andrew Hamilton ably sums up [7], before the Civil War, Jews were overrepresented among the people who created and benefited from Negro slavery. Furthermore, they played almost no role in abolishing it. However, as Kevin MacDonald exhaustively documents [8], after the immigration of millions of East European Jews at the end of the 19th century, Jews began to regard black civil rights as a way that they could increase their own communal power by eroding the power of the white majority. Thus Jews have taken the lead in promoting black political emancipation, social mobility, and cultural visibility — all at the expense of the white majority.

    It is, of course, impossible for the director of Pulp Fiction [9] to create 2 hours and 45 minutes of film that are completely devoid of charm, although Django Unchained is Tarantino’s worst effort. My favorite parts are Fritz the horse, the Spaghetti Western music, and Samuel L. Jackson’s performance of Calvin Candie’s loathsome and obsequious head house nigger Stephen.

    Stephen enjoys great familiarity with and influence over Massa Candie. In front of others, he is the Massa’s faithful echo: “Yassa, dass right.” But in private he pours himself the Massa’s cognac and tells him what’s what. Yet he is so jealous of his status as head nigger that he never considers doing anything for the good of his people. Indeed, he is more zealous about degrading his fellow blacks than Candie himself, who is a proven sadist.

    Jackson is a brilliant actor. All he needed to bring this role alive was five minutes watching Tarantino interacting with Harvey Weinstein.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • „Django Unchained“: Ein weiterer jüdischer feuchter Traum
    (”Mandingo” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Django_Unchained_Poster

    [1]words

    Übersetzt von Deep Roots

    English original here [2]

    Quentin Tarantinos letzter Film, Inglourious Basterds [3] (2007), erzählt die Geschichte einer Gruppe amerikanischer Juden, die sich mit einem Nichtweißen zusammentun (einem indianisch-weißen Mischling aus Tennessee mit einem italienischen Namen wie Tarantino selbst), um während des Zweiten Weltkriegs böse weiße Männer und Frauen (Nazis) zu foltern, zu verstümmeln und abzuschlachten. „Terds“, wie er kurz heißt, ist eine ausgefeilte Fantasie über jüdischen Sadismus und Rache. Tarantinos Produzent, Lawrence Bender, sagte ihm: „Als dein Produktionspartner danke ich dir, und als Mitglied des jüdischen Stammes danke ich dir, motherfucker, denn dieser Film ist ein verdammter jüdischer feuchter Traum (a fucking Jewish wet dream [4]).“

    Reizende Leute.

    Tarantinos neuester Film Django Unchained (2012) erzählt die Geschichte eines ehemaligen schwarzen Sklaven, Django (Jamie Foxx), der von einem umherziehenden deutschen Zahnarzt, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) zum Kopfgeldjäger ausgebildet wird. Django und Schultz versuchen dann, Djangos Ehefrau Broomhilda (sic) ausfindig zu machen und zu kaufen. Sobald Broomhilda entdeckt ist, geht Django dazu über, zahllose böse Weiße zu massakrieren: Sklavenhalter, deren Schwestern, zahnlose inzuchtgezeugte Redneck-Idioten, Sklavenhändler und die Pferde, auf denen sie herbeiritten – anscheinend mit Explosivgeschossen, angesichts der Geysire von Blut, der abgetrennten Gliedmaßen und fliegenden Innereien, die abgesehen davon, daß sie Übelkeit und nervöses Lachen hervorrufen, dem Film ein ermüdendes, absurdes Gefühl verleihen.

    Die Sklaverei war eine böse Institution, die schwarzen Sklaven und freien Weißen gleichermaßen von Amerikas kleiner, soziopathischer Kapitalistenklasse angetan wurde, zu denen solche verehrten „Gründerväter“ wie Washington und Jefferson gehörten, die zur Förderung der wirtschaftlichen Interessen ihrer Klasse eine Menge hochgestochenes Geschwätz über Rechte, Freiheit und Gleichheit benutzten, um den Pöbel dazu zu bringen, in einem Sezessionskrieg gegen England zu kämpfen und zu sterben.

    Als Amerika gegründet wurde, war es ein rassisch und kulturell überwiegend homogenes Land, aber es war nie wirklich eine organische Gemeinschaft, in der soziale Ungleichheiten sich dadurch rechtfertigen mußten, dem Gemeinwohl zu dienen. Stattdessen war es eine liberale Gesellschaft, in der Individuen, die „Rechte“ besaßen, welche Erwägungen des Gemeinwohls übertrumpfen, sich durch Mittel zu bereichern suchten, die eine anständige Gesellschaft nicht erlaubt hätte, einschließlich der Sklaverei.

    Idealerweise wäre Amerika eine klassische republikanische Gemeinschaft mit einer breiten Mittelklasse selbständiger Bauern, Gewerbetreibender, Handwerker und Kaufleute gewesen. Um den Verlust an Freiheit zu verhindern, der kommt, wenn wenige reiche Männer schließlich Massen armer Männer beschäftigen, wären unternehmerische Individuen in Schach gehalten worden, sodaß es wenige Arbeitgeber und wenige Arbeitnehmer gegeben hätte. Kurz gesagt, wären Kapitalismus und Ungleichheit dem Gemeinwohl untergeordnet worden.

    Die zweitbeste Option wäre die Regulierung des Kapitalismus durch eine starke politische Allianz unabhängiger Kleinbauern und gewerkschaftlich organisierter Arbeitnehmer gewesen, mit dem Ziel, eine echt organische Republik zu schaffen. (Die Arbeiterbewegung ist meiner Meinung nach das eine wahrhaft heroische Kapitel der amerikanischen Geschichte.) Unter solch einem System wäre die Sklaverei friedlich und unblutig mittels Entschädigungen abgeschafft worden, wie es buchstäblich überall sonst der Fall war, und alle Schwarzen wären nach Afrika repatriiert worden, um die rassische und kulturelle Homogenität zu verbessern, welche die größten Segnungen und Stärken jeder Gesellschaft sind. Große Plantagen wären in kleine, unabhängige Farmen aufgeteilt worden. Die Leute aus den großen Häusern hätten gelernt, ihre eigene verdammte Baumwolle zu pflücken.

    Es wäre wunderbar, einen Film zu haben, der die wahren Übel der Sklaverei und allgemeiner des Kapitalismus aus einer arbeiterfreundlichen, kleinbauernfreundlichen Perspektive dramatisiert. Aber Django Unchained ist nicht dieser Film. Die Wahrheit über die Sklaverei war schlimm genug. Man braucht nicht zu übertreiben oder Lügen darüber zu erzählen. Aber dieser Film ist voller lächerlicher Lügen.

    Eine Titelkarte informiert uns darüber, daß der Film im Jahr 1858 spielt, „zwei Jahre vor dem Bürgerkrieg“. Der Bürgerkrieg begann natürlich 1861.

    In einer Szene sehen wir maskierte Vigilanten zu Pferde, vermutlich den Ku Klux Klan, der erst 1865 gegründet wurde.

    Als Dr. Schultz erfährt, daß Djangos Frau Broomhilda heißt, erzählt er die Geschichte von Siegfried und Brünhilde, in die er Elemente aus Wagners Der Ring des Nibelungen einbezieht, dessen Libretto 1852 geschrieben wurde, das aber nur unter Wagners Freunden zirkulierte. Die beiden Opern, aus denen Dr. Schultz Anleihen nahm, Die Walküre und Siegfried, hatten ihre Premiere 1870 beziehungsweise 1876.

    An einer Stelle werden wir in den Cleopatra Club geführt, ein aufwendiges Bordell voller schwarzer Huren. (Es erscheint seltsam, daß weiße Männer schwarze Huren bevorzugen sollten, wenn es reichlich weiße Huren gab.) Die historische Kleopatra, die siebente ihres Namens, mag vielleicht ein bißchen eine Hure gewesen sein, aber sie war eine mazedonische Griechin, keine Schwarze.

    [5]Der Cleopatra Club ist mit Büsten von Königin Nofretete dekoriert, die 1300 Jahre vor Kleopatra lebte und ebenfalls nicht schwarz war. Die spezielle Büste, die reproduziert wurde und sich im Ägyptischen Museum in Berlin befindet, wurde 1912 in Tel-el-Amarna ausgegraben.

    Aber warum pedantisch sein, angesichts dessen, daß dieser Film von einem vollkommenen Zyniker für ein Publikum von Idioten gemacht wurde?

    In einem der Salons des Cleopatra Club überwacht sein Eigner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) einen „Mandingokampf“ zwischen zwei starken Schwarzen. Der Kampf findet nicht in einem Ring statt, sondern nur an einem Ende des Raumes, umgeben von den Stühlen der Zuschauer – ein absurdes, unpraktisches und unsicheres Arrangement, angesichts dessen, daß diese Männer auf Leben und Tod kämpfen. (Es gibt übrigens keine Hinweise darauf, daß Sklavenhalter jemals solche Gladiatorenkämpfe veranstalteten.) Nach einer Menge Grunzen und etwas Augenausdrücken befiehlt Candie dem siegreichen Sklaven, seinen Gegner mit einem Klauenhammer zu erledigen. Später befiehlt Candie, daß ein entlaufener Sklave von Hunden zerrissen wird. Ja, dies ist ein widerlich sadistischer Film: der Marquis de Sade trifft auf Onkel Toms Hütte (eine Charakterisierung, die ich für Mandingo [6] [1975] aufsparte, der jetzt vergleichsweise wie eine Jane-Austen-Adaptation erscheint).

    Die Botschaft dieses Films an Schwarze lautet, daß Weiße abscheuliche Sadisten und Idioten sind, die mit äußerster Brutalität getötet und erledigt werden sollten. Louis Farrakhan beschrieb den Film als „Vorbereitung auf den Rassenkrieg.“ Weiße sind wegen dieses Films gestorben, genauso wie Weiße wegen der Lügen gestorben sind, die Anderson Cooper und andere Leute in den Medien über George Zimmerman und Trayvon Martin erzählten. Daher sollten wir uns glücklich schätzen, daß Django Unchained so lang (mit 2 Stunden und 45 Minuten) und langweilig ist, daß er unüberwindliche Anforderungen an die durchschnittliche schwarze Aufmerksamkeitsspanne stellt. (Zumindest sollten wir es nächsten Sommer sicher wissen, falls Babies mit Namen wie Broomhilda und Phrenology auftauchen sollten.)

    Wenn Tarantino bloß Schwarze zu einer mörderischen Wut gegen Weiße hätte aufhetzen wollen, dann hätte er einen sehr unterschiedlichen Film gemacht. Aber Tarantino hatte ein ganz anderes Publikum im Sinn. Tarantino will einen Oscar. Er wünscht sich ihn sehr. Daher ist Django Unchained ein weiterer jüdischer feuchter Traum. Dies ist ein Film, der dafür berechnet ist, jüdischen Hass auf weiße Amerikaner anzusprechen. Spezifisch geht es bei Django Unchained um die jüdische Strategie, Schwarze als biologische Massenvernichtungswaffen gegen Weiße einzusetzen. (Am Weihnachtstag veröffentlicht, sodaß Juden ihn entweder vor oder nach dem Dinner in einem chinesischen Restaurant sehen konnten.)

    Der Schlüssel zur Absicht des Filmemachers ist, daß Christoph Waltz den Charakter von Djangos Partner, Dr. Schultz, als Juden spielt.

    Als Dr. Schultz erstmals erscheint, fährt er einen kleinen Hausiererwagen mit einem großen, auf einer Feder montierten Modell eines drollig auf und ab hüpfenden Zahns oben drauf. Er ist ein umherziehender Zahnarzt mit einem ausländischen Akzent. Er ist physisch klein und nicht bedrohlich, mit einem Watschelgang und seinen Armen und Händen eng an seinem Körper. Er ist aber ein echter Redner, mit einem glatten Geschwätz und großem Vokabular, was die dummen, wortkargen goyim abstoßend finden. Aber äußere Erscheinungen täuschen, denn Dr. Schultz ist in Wirklichkeit ein kalter, berechnender Killer, der komplexe Listen und eine Waffe im Ärmel anwendet, um seinen Willen zu bekommen. Er ist ein Kopfgeldjäger, der es vorzieht, sie tot abzuliefern. Er vergleicht seine Arbeit mit dem Sklavenhandel: Menschenfleisch für kalte, harte Münze. Aber seine Waren können nicht weglaufen.

    Hasserfüllte Fantasien darüber, sich mit Schwarzen zusammenzutun, um Weißen zu schaden, sind Grundnahrungsmittel der jüdischen Vorstellungskraft. Während des Präsidentschaftswahlkampfes von 2008 warnte Sandra Bernhard Sarah Palin, der jüdischen Hochburg New York fernzubleiben, weil sie sonst „von meinen großen schwarzen Brüdern gruppenvergewaltigt wird“:

     

    Während des Präsidentschaftswahlkampfes von 2012 warnte Bill Maher davor, Mitt Romney zu wählen, denn „Schwarze wissen, wer ihr seid, und sie werden euch holen kommen“:

     

    Aber die jüdisch-schwarze Allianz gegen Weiße geht weit über die Fantasien von Psychopathen mit Medien-Megaphonen hinaus. Sie ist ein integraler Teil der Strategie der jüdischen Gemeinschaft zur Förderung ihrer kollektiven Interessen in Amerika.

    Wie unser Andrew Hamilton so gekonnt zusammenfaßt [7], waren die Juden vor dem Bürgerkrieg unter jenen Leuten überrepräsentiert, die die Negersklaverei schufen und von ihr profitierten. Aber sie spielten fast keine Rolle bei ihrer Abschaffung. Wie jedoch Kevin MacDonald erschöpfend dokumentiert [8], begannen die Juden nach der Einwanderung von Millionen osteuropäischer Juden am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts schwarze Bürgerrechte als Möglichkeit zu betrachten, wie sie ihre eigene gemeinsame Macht steigern konnten, indem sie die Macht der weißen Mehrheit erodierten. Daher haben Juden die Führung bei der Förderung der politischen Emanzipation, sozialen Mobilität und kulturellen Sichtbarkeit von Schwarzen übernommen – alles auf Kosten der weißen Mehrheit.

    Es ist natürlich unmöglich für den Regisseur von Pulp Fiction [9], 2 Stunden und 45 Minuten Film zu schaffen, die völlig ohne Charme sind, auch wenn Django Unchained Tarantinos schlechteste Arbeit ist. Meine Lieblingsteile sind Fritz das Pferd, die Spaghettiwesternmusik und Samuel L. Jacksons Darstellung von Calvin Candies widerlichem und kriecherischem Ober-Hausnigger Stephen.

    Stephen genießt große Vertraulichkeit mit Massa Candie und hat großen Einfluß auf ihn. Vor anderen ist er das getreue Echo des Massa: „Yassa, dass right.“ Aber unter vier Augen gießt er sich den Cognac des Massa ein und sagt ihm, was Sache ist. Und doch ist er so eifersüchtig auf seinen Status als Chefnigger, daß er nie in Erwägung zieht, irgend etwas zum Wohl seines Volkes zu tun. Tatsächlich ist er noch eifriger im Entwürdigen seiner Mit-Schwarzen als Candie selbst, der ein ausgewiesener Sadist ist.

    Jackson ist ein brillanter Schauspieler. Um seine Rolle zum Leben zu erwecken, brauchte er nur fünf Minuten lang Tarantinos Interaktion mit Harvey Weinstein zuzusehen.

    Source: https://schwertasblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/django-unchained-ein-weiterer-judischer-feuchter-traum/ [10]

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Race-Mixing: Not Just for Losers Anymore?
    (”Mandingo” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    1,459 words

    German translation here [1]

    [2]

    Boldly going where no man has gone before: television's first interracial kiss on "Star Trek"

    When most people see whites dating non-whites, the immediate assumption is that there is something wrong with the white. Usually the defects are obvious. We know why a homely or obese white woman is sleeping with blacks or Mexicans: They are willing to overlook her faults because she is white. We know why a geeky, acne-scarred white man gravitates towards Asians: They are willing to overlook his faults because he is white (and of course the aliens are angling for green cards and money as well).

    And what about attractive whites who date non-whites? In recent years, more and more white men who are not obvious losers are dating Asians. But according to the conventional wisdom, they probably have hidden physical or psychological defects, such as a self-esteem problem. (Seems pretty reasonable to me.)

    Race-mixing is sold as an expression of progress in racial equality: Fair Romeos will no longer be separated from their dusky Juliets by the antiquated prejudices of their parents’ generation. But the ugly truth is that race-mixing usually presupposes racism and racial hierarchies. The whites feel that they are dating or marrying down, and the non-whites feel that they are dating or marrying up.

    [3]

    Chris Pine, the new Captain Kirk

    White losers are attracted to marrying down, because they feel that their grateful partners will overlook their flaws for the privilege of marrying into a superior race, and their non-white partners think the same thing: they could never get a normal white, but they are willing to take up with a subnormal one, because they want to marry into a superior race.

    An allied attitude is that non-whites can’t be blamed for wanting to date or marry whites. Their racial betrayal is seen as a completely healthy impulse. The attitude is: “Who could blame black men for pursuing white women? Have you seen black women?” “Who could blame Asian women for wanting to date white men? Just look at Asian men!” (Everybody also knows that Asian men and black women are the big losers in the inter-racial dating game.)

    These are not, moreover, the attitudes of hardcore racists alone. Virtually everyone believes this, white and non-white, race-mixers included.

    I hold these views, even though I know that there are obviously some cases in which they are not true. There is enough interaction between the races now that perfectly normal people can form friendships that turn into romances.

    But the attitudes persist, because they are what Burke calls “wise prejudices”–based on past experience, repeatedly confirmed by new experiences, and therefore handy heuristic assumptions to maintain when visiting the Bay Area.

    [4]

    Alan Tudyk & Gina Torres in "Firefly"

    But even though everyone believes that white race-mixers are defective, nobody really talks about it. Even the diversity police who obsessively try to expose every other instance of hidden racism, real or imagined, remain silent. I suspect they are silent because they know that a widespread discussion of this attitude would inhibit race-mixing, and they don’t want to do that.

    White race-mixers may know they are defective, but they think that others do not divine this fact when they parade their non-white paramours in public . If they knew that others saw them as defective, they might not be so enthusiastic about race-mixing. This is especially true of otherwise attractive and normal-looking white race-mixers, who would not be suspected of having hidden flaws if they did not advertise them by pursuing non-white sexual partners.

    There has been a certain normalization of white men dating Asians. Because feminism has made so many otherwise attractive white women into bitches, it is easy to understand why perfectly normal white men are tempted to settle for Asian women, as they seem to be more feminine, submissive, and oriented toward home and family.

    But even those who defend whites dating Asians as a normal and healthy reaction to a sick society, will immediately assume that there must be something wrong with a white man who dates a black woman. Even the most delirious Yellow Fever victims balk at that.

    [5]

    Nathan Fillion in "Firefly"

    Hence the normalization of white male/black female pairings has emerged as an identifiable action item on the agenda for white genocide.

    For a long time, such parings were quite rare in television and the movies. It seemed easier to sell images of black men as wise mentors, crime fighters, scientific geniuses, US Presidents, and God, than black women as attractive sexual partners for normal, non-defective white men.

    Yes, there was the famous kiss between Captain Kirk (William Shatner) and Lt. Uhuru (Nichelle Nichols) in the original Star Trek series, but Kirk was under alien influence. Yes, there was race-mixing in Mandingo (the Marquis de Sade meets Uncle Tom’s Cabin), but the white race-mixers were explicitly shown to be physically and psychologically defective. The same is true in Roots. Yes, there was the neighbor across the hall in The Jeffersons. But he was a dweeb. James Bond, of course, is one of the earliest white miscegenators on the big screen, but we assume he is closing his eyes, holding his nose, and thinking about England. And when Bond marries, he marries a white woman.

    But in recent years, there has been a trend towards pairing white Alpha males with black women. Not just normal white males, but superior white males. Heroic white males. Winners, not losers.

    [6]

    Rosario Dawson as Roxane

    The first time this struck me was in Oliver Stone’s 2004 film Alexander [7], in which Alexander the Great (you can’t get more Alpha than Alexander the Great), played by Colin Farrell, is paired with the mulatto Rosario Dawson, who is cast as Roxane, Alexander’s queen. (The historical Roxane was the daughter of a Persian aristocrat. She was reputed to be one of the most beautiful women in the Empire. She was probably as Aryan as Alexander himself.)

    Then there is Joss Whedon’s superb but short-lived 2002 science fiction series Firefly, in which starship pilot Hoban Washburne, played by the very Nordic Alan Tudyk, is married to Zoë, a black Amazon with grotesquely large lips played by Gina Torres. The character of “Wash” is something of a dork, and he is not the captain of the ship, so he is not the real Alpha. The captain, Malcolm Reynolds (played by Nathan Fillion) is a true Alpha male, and his romantic interest is a white woman, Inara (played by the beautiful Morena Baccarin). But in one episode he is shown lusting after Zoë as well.

    In another science fiction series, the new Battlestar Galactica, Alpha male Lee Adama, played by the Nordic Jamie Bamber, marries green-eyed mulatto Dualla, played by Kandyse McClure. (Admittedly, the character is punishing himself and the white woman woman he really wants to marry. But he could have punished himself with another white woman.)

    [8]

    Kandyse McClure & Jamie Bamber in "Battlestar Galactica"

    Finally, in the new Star Trek movie, the Alpha male, Captain Kirk, played by the Nordic Chris Pine, is shown lusting after a black woman and even a green woman–but never a white woman. (This essay originally began as a review of Star Trek, but I have nothing to add to Jonathan Pyle’s superb Occidental Observer essay “Star Trek and the Multiracial Future [9].”)

    I am sure that many other examples can be provided.

    Why is Hollywood portraying white Alpha males pursuing and even marrying black women? Because they want the Beta males, the Gamma males, and everybody else down to the Omega males, to follow them down the path to white racial extinction.

    [10]

    Jamie Bamber with his real family

    The people who create these movies–the directors, the writers, the producers, the casting directors–are not artists. They are abortionists. They are aborting the whole future of the white race. And they are not doing it by accident. We know this, because so many of them are Jews, who are constantly reminded from birth that marrying out leads to extinction for them, and they know that goes for us too. (The fact that many of these Jews marry out make them even worse. It means that they are committing genocide against their own people as well as ours.)

    When the white nationalist movement can mobilize the numbers, the idealism, and the physical courage evoked by the anti-abortion movement, then I will stop fearing for the future of my race. And even then, it will take a full-blown revolution, not merely a constitutional amendment, to save us.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema1
Soiled Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Poor Pretty Eddie
    (”Mandingo” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    In terms of superlatively stupid, uniquely ugly, and all around aesthetically and thematically repugnant films, I cannot not think...
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Race War Unchained: Why Quentin Tarantino Is Wrong About John Brown
    (”Mandingo” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': '', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); Louis Farrakhan (approvingly) called it “Preparation for race war” while according to Brietbart’s Big Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino’s Oscar-winning film Django Unchained was “The Most Pro-Freedom Movie of 2012.”Then there was Marc Lamont Hill, the intellectual mediocrity of a Columbia professor who gets dragged out of mothballs when a racial event reaches pop status, says something stupidly outrageous, apologizes or clarifies, then gets put away until the next time.On a CNN panel about the ghoulish fan club for rampaging LAPD ex-cop Christopher Dorner, who counted among his victims the Asian-American daughter of a cop who investigated him, Hill said:And, many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people: they’re rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching Django Unchained in real life. It’s kind of exciting.Perhaps the most famous off-screen line about the film came from an opening Saturday Night Live satirical monologue from Jamie Foxx that riffed on “how black is that,”I play a slave. How black is that? And in the movie I had to wear chains. How whack is that? But don't be worried about it because I get out the chains, I get free, I save my wife, and I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that? And how black is that?But in the film, Django does no such thing. In fact, [SPOILER ALERT] he teams with a white guy whose moral outrage eventually gets the better of him, and gets himself killed (and without whose help, Django would have accomplished none of his heroics.)I recently grabbed Django Unchained at a Redbox, and found it far less a compelling re-watch than it was as a first time experience in the theater (and less disturbing, having watched it in an urban multiplex where audience reaction was, at times, appallingly inappropriate). This movie relies so much on shock value and surprising choices (particularly musically) that the second time around, some of the anachronisms become much more annoying.And since Tarantino himself brought up history…Next: Django Unchained is much like the rhetoric that helped cause the Civil War. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/8/24/race-war-unchained-why-quentin-tarantino-is-wrong-about-john-brown/ previous Page 1 of 5 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻  Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail