Is the alt-right ruining movies?

Post Reply New Topic

This was the case in the UK from the 1500s until the late 1700s. The Somersett and Knight cases represent the end of that period as the courts determined no legal basis for slavery existed within English or Scots law.

Why can't you just look it up for yourself?

Why do others have you hand you everything on a platter?

It took my literally 5 minutes to find this evidence. Are you that lazy you can't spend 5 minutes verifying claims made by others?



Just do your own research.

I did not come to my current views by having everyone hand me everything on a platter. It took me years of research, constantly challenging the status quo, to get to where I am today.



If a movie takes place in a certain time period, I'm bothered by historical inaccuracy unless there is a good reason for it, which means that it improves the story being told in one way or another, which can compensate for that. For example, there are biographical movies where several less important real life people are compounded into a single semi-fictional character to increase the flow of the story and keep the focus on the main character(s). I can live with that.

Here we're talking about traditionally White characters (historical or otherwise) being made eg. Black or Hispanic & traditionally male characters being made female to adhere to some politically enforced racial & gender quote, which actually weakens the credibility of the story.

And it's not just because the characters replace were White or male. If they made Genghis Khan or Malcolm X White women, it would be just as ridiculous and problematic.



If we're talking about history lessons, historical accuracy should be a key priority. So I'd bother less about "diversity" propaganda being pushed in history class if it could be done without distorting history... which is hard to do, though. But that's another topic.

We're talking about movies here. Movies are a medium for story-telling. And here, the story is central. So, we should look at whichever has the best / worst impact on the story being told. That's a less clear-cut case IMO.



What about this article?

That article barely took me a minute to find.

Again, what is it that's stopping you from finding these articles for yourself if not either laziness or an unwillingness to challenge your own irrational biases?



The reality is that we simply don't know Cheddar man's skin colour. However, there is no reason whatsoever that his skin color is any different from that of native Britons (which is White), other than a questionable computer algorithm.

The whole "Cheddar man is Black" story is nothing but a blatantly obvious attempt at attacking the very notion of native Britons being White, in just another sickening attempt to push multiculturalism down our throats!



This "diversity" propaganda is literally everywhere... from ads to TV shows to school curricula. It boggles my mind how anyone can be so surrounded by propaganda yet fail to recognize it.



The so-called godfather of the "Alt-Right", Paul Gottfried, actually happens to be a Jew. Also, Richard Spencer, one of the main figureheads of the "Alt-Right", expressed his admiration for Israel & its Jewish identitarianism on multiple occasions, even calling himself a "White Zionist". Spencer is also reportedly a good friend of Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief speechwriter throughout his presidential campaign and the Jewish adviser behind his "American Carnage". And then there's the fact that many on the "Alt-Right" continue to support Trump to this day, in spite of its close ties with Netanyahu, Adelson & others on the ethnonationalist Zionist right.

Calling the "Alt-Right" is an antisemitic movement is about as ridiculous as accusing Trump of being Putin's puppet. I wouldn't be surprised if you believe that ridiculous conspiracy theory as well, though...



That argument is similar to arguing that anyone who is a vegan must be an evil antisemite because Hitler was a vegan!



Until the 1960s, France was the only country in Europe with a significant number of non-Whites. Even in England, with all its oversees colonies, the actual number of non-White immigrants was negligible.

Also, the few non-White immigrants Europe did have used to stick to major cities like Paris, London, Amsterdam or Brussels. As soon as you went to the countryside, everything was not 95%, not 99%, but 100% White!

I was born in the 1980s and I'd never even seen a Black person in real life until the late 1990s or early 2000. Now I see them everwhere.

Even the Europe I grew up in, as a kid from the 1980s, was far less "multicultural" than the Europe I live in today. Even with all the immigrants from Turkey & Morocco that came to Europe between 1960 & 1990, most of Europe was still extremely White in the 1980s.

If you are debating with any intellectual integrity you should understand that when you make a claim, it is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim. You seem to be disingenuous in your arguing, asking others to look up evidence to support YOUR claims.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm the only one here who's backing up his claims with links to sources... links still present in the post of mine which you just quoted!

For a source on the racial makeup of Europe up until a century ago, just read literally ANY book on the topic from the 1920s.

Why can't you just look it up for yourself?

Why do others have you hand you everything on a platter?

It took my literally 5 minutes to find this evidence. Are you that lazy you can't spend 5 minutes verifying claims made by others?

Yeah, what am I talking about? You're obviously not asking others to look up sources for your claims, I just pulled that out of my butt.

Why can't you just look it up for yourself?

Just do your own research.

I did not come to my current views by having everyone hand me everything on a platter. It took me years of research, constantly challenging the status quo, to get to where I am today.

If we're talking about history lessons, historical accuracy should be a key priority. So I'd bother less about "diversity" propaganda being pushed in history class if it could be done without distorting history... which is hard to do, though. But that's another topic.

Again, what is it that's stopping you from finding these articles for yourself if not either laziness or an unwillingness to challenge your own irrational biases?

The reality is that we simply don't know Cheddar man's skin colour. However, there is no reason whatsoever that his skin color is any different from that of native Britons (which is White), other than a questionable computer algorithm.

The whole "Cheddar man is Black" story is nothing but a blatantly obvious attempt at attacking the very notion of native Britons being White, in just another sickening attempt to push multiculturalism down our throats!

This "diversity" propaganda is literally everywhere... from ads to TV shows to school curricula. It boggles my mind how anyone can be so surrounded by propaganda yet fail to recognize it.

The norm that I consider reasonable is that the person who makes a definite claim is the one who offers reason or evidence, either up front, or when asked. If I had flat out told you that you are wrong, it would have been up to me to search, and you would be right to call me out. In this case, I think not.

For a claim that vague and general? I could spend my life on it, and still not know what you mean. I don't even know how broadly you define propaganda.

So is it fair to say that historical inaccuracy bothers you more than historically accurate propaganda, and the combination more still?

And I still have the same question. How do you go from disagreeing to concluding that what you disagree with must be propaganda?

Perhaps we have different definitions of propaganda. What's yours?

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.

why is it propaganda that you keep going on about? And why specifically diversity?

Advertising is trying to convince you to buy stuff, with regard to truth only in so far as advertisers are constrained by law, and without any concern for whether it is in your interest or not. Persuasion entirely for the benefit of someone else, without concern for cost to you. That is my definition of propaganda. You don't object to any of that widespread propaganda. It's only "diversity propaganda" that gets your goat.

What is the cost to you? And do you realise that you may benefit from it?

If lynching becomes fashionable again, do you really think that when the lynch mobs run out of ethnic and sexual minorities, they'll forget about us weirdoes?

You're always free to start a pro-xenophobia political party, but the currently existing ones don't do so well. I stand by my previous comment since your rebuttal fails to rebut.

Wow, that's pretty racist. I'm surprised to see someone say something so blatantly anti-black here. How is that allowed?

So to you, being British or Chinese is more genetic than cultural? How about German versus Austrian? I doubt that nation states are that genetically distinct.


That's at least consistent, but you'll have a hard time finding anyone in Britain without any Norman ancestors. How do you know you are not a descendant of a Norman? Those Normans did put themselves about quite a bit. Will you expel yourself if you find you have Norman ancestry? To where? Brittany, or all the way back to Scandinavia? You could go back to a still earlier time, and declare all Indo-Europeans invaders, and kick their descendants out of Europe. That would be you and me, both. Do you think India or Pakistan would welcome us?

And if being mixed race doesn't disqualify someone, why would a Norman ancestor from 40 generations ago?

Immigration happened long before there was a single government. You should have a look at "Bloody Foreigners" by Robert Winder:



That's sounds a lot like "It is well known that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction". It is not evidence. Anyone can claim that anything is public knowledge.


So would you be upset if a movie portrayed Jack the Ripper as Indian?

Also, the Bond movies had a Lotus that was both a fully functional sports car and a fully functional submarine, lasers in orbit more powerful than anything that flies even today, decades later, but the thing you find most unrealistic is that the son of a Scottish aristocrat and a Swiss mother could look like Idris Elba?


So I was wrong about the Celts. You mean Cheddar Man: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/scientists-get-their-first-look-cheddar-man-one-england-s-oldest-modern-humans. You do know Cheddar Man was black?


So if Idris Elba gets some blue contact lenses, will he be Bond?

How is it Xenophobia? Smaller parties don't do well because we have a rigged system.

Because you're suggesting that immigrants can't possibly ever actually be a part of the culture they've chosen to join. I'm not sure if you're playing dumb or if you really don't comprehend the words you post.

Further, who said anything about invasion? Just because you chose to use certain terms for rhetorical effect doesn't mean that they're actually a reason description of what's actually occurring. Repeating these terms over and over and complaining that others won't adopt them is just the political correctness the nationalist/reactionary far-right is known for these days.