Is the alt-right ruining movies?

Post Reply New Topic

What are you implying?

That Neil Gabler, Joel Stein and every other Jew who acknowledges the obvious fact that Hollywood is (and always has been) very Jewish are all evil antisemites?

That it is not possible to say anything about any individual Jew or group of Jews that could be perceived as negative without being antisemitic?

That facts are antisemitic?

Tell me... What is your point?



We ARE talking about Dr Who, right?

From Wikipedia :



And here is one of the many articles celibrating this... for the sake of "diversity", of course!



It sure doesn't seem right to me that Jack the Ripper or Vlad The Impaler would be played as an Indian... not just because they're cultural icons, but also because they are historical figures who lived in all-White countries. Abandoning historical accuracy for the sake of "diversity" peddling is simply wrong.

Jack the Ripper or Vlad The Impaler being played by an Indian actor would make sense only in a Bollywood movie, where every actor is Indian.



The problem with this is not so much that it is unrealistic as it is the fact that it is blatant "diversity" propaganda that adds literally nothing to the story.



He wasn't. That's just more blatant propaganda.

See eg. Ancient ‘dark-skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true!

Evidence! Just what I asked for. Only, one of the sources you offer as evidence has this to say about Daniel89's earlier claim of the change being imposed from above for reasons of propaganda:
Fans.

I am still not convinced by the propaganda claim. Give me good enough evidence, and I'll change my mind about that, too.


I didn't say that was my motive for the suggestion. But now that you allege that motive, what would bother you more? What you consider historical inaccuracy, or "diversity peddling", and why?


You seem to object both to historical inaccuracy and "diversity propaganda". Which bothers you more? Would you object to historically accurate diversity propaganda? More than to historically inaccurate erasure of diversity?



Not for you. I take your word for it. If it adds something to the story for other people, would you accept that a legitimate reason for them to ask for that diversity? As legitimate as your objection?


"May not". Do you have a source that explains the reasons and is not behind a paywall? And how do you get from "it's more complicated than first reported" (my paraphrase) to "blatant propaganda"? That is what keeps bothering me. The repeated claim, without evidence, that what you object to is propaganda.

Last edited by Gromit on 15 Jan 2019, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not implying anything, I am flat out saying that the alt-right is full of anti-Semites. It's one of the few things the various different wings of the alt-right seem to agree on, that Jews are evil. The fact that many movie producers are and have been Jewish doesn't make the alt-right any less anti-Semitic in their rhetoric. So supporting the alt-right and repeating their talking points make you look like an anti-Semite by associating yourself with them and using their rhetoric. That's what I am overtly stating.

Ans since when was Victorian England an "all-white" country? You know the British Empire, during it's height of Victoria's Reign, had colonies, right? And many of those countries they colonized were made up of PoC, yeah? And many of those colonial peoples went to live in England, were you aware of this? From colonies in Africa, from the Carribean/Jamaica, from colonies in the East. Also slavery was a thing that happened, that brought many people of colour to the UK as well as to America (yeah, America was not the only country to have slaves--surprise!) So how do you figure England was an "all-white country" at the time?

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.

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.

I'm agreeing with your description, just adding detail since those cases might be used to argue it never existed by someone who knows of them, but not about the situation prior to them (like me until an hour ago).

And as a consequence, there was no significant number of Blacks in the UK for centuries, unlike in the American south.

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. For example, take Racial Realities In Europe

Last edited by aspiesavant on 16 Jan 2019, 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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.

You might want to read that again.

I was actually providing links to sources Gromit was asking for... sources to prove a point someone else had made... and which he could have easily found for himself if he bothered to do a 5 minute Google search.

For those who might be interested to learn the various ways the Alt-right is wrong and why no one should listen to them, check out the youtuber "Contrapoints", she's done several really good exposés on the subject on her channel. (I think a couple were from before Natalie's transition, so though I say "she" because that's how she identifies now, she presents as male in some of her earlier videos--just so no one is confused if they find them and the videos are being narrated by a guy. It's still Natalie throughout, just some videos are pre-transition.) She is an academic whose videos are very well-researched and well-written, as well as being very funny and entertaining.

Here are a couple examples of her videos on the topic of the Alt-Right:

Most people don’t debate. These are discussions and arguments not debates.

For those who might be interested to learn why the real problem here is not some evil "Alt-Right" conspiracy but the increasingly blatant and poorly executed infusion of increasingly subversive Liberal politics into Hollywood movies (along with comics & video games), check out some of the following Youtube vids.

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.


I think I did the same. We still disagree.


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


See above, and if I think you misinterpreted the evidence, wouldn't you at least want me to look at what you chose, rather than what I picked? Though I'll make an exception when your source is the Daily Mail.


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? And also, if you are more bothered about historical inaccuracy, 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?

I try to back up a lot of statements with links to online sources or references to physical books.

It takes a lot of time, though, to provide a reference to every single statement that is to blatantly obvious to me but somehow does not ring true to you. So I try to be selective, as I don't have all the time in the world either.

Most people I discuss don't even bother to check the links, though. Some even refuse to check any source that is likely to contradict their biases. And that really, really doesn't encourage one to keep sourcing every single thing.

In fact, do you provide a source for every claim you make?



I could give you ample articles or videos to start with.

Or I could post them here or send them to you in a PM, as to avoid "spamming" this thread with off-topic information.

Just ask for it. Tell me what you want to know more about, and I'll give you some sources that support my perspective on that topic.



It depends on the context.

IMO, historical inaccuracy should ALWAYS be avoided in non-fiction, but it's OK in fiction only if it actually improves the story being told. And I can appreciate good propaganda even if I don't agree with the message to some degree. But if it's overly blatant AND it kinda ruins the narrative of what could have been a great movie...

See above, and if I think you misinterpreted the evidence, wouldn't you at least want me to look at what you chose, rather than what I picked? Though I'll make an exception when your source is the Daily Mail.



Context.

If the whole "Cheddar man is Black" story was an isolated story, I would probably not have bothered to look for any agenda. But when the mainstream media is filled with "articles" pushing "diversity" in one way or another, it becomes hard to believe this was not just one more attempt to push that narrative.



I go with Wikipedia's definition :



Propaganda can consist of blatant lies. More often than not, however, it consists of a mixture or carefully selected truths, half-truths & distortions... which are swallowed much smoother than blatant lies!



Because all this "diversity" propaganda is turning woman against man, Blacks against White and its otherwise responsible for destabilizing society in a myriad of ways.



Actually... If it were up to me, corporate advertising would be illegal.



I see no benefits from a society where communities are fractured, single parent families are the norm, race hatred is everywhere and everyone is on some kind of substance (either illegal or prescribed) to deal with the mess their life has become.

That is precisely what the plutocracy want to achieve with their "diversity" propaganda. They want a divided population, where every "identity" group fights every other group, ignoring the fat cats who're really running the show.



There's so many false assumptions underlying that statement I don't even know where to begin to respond to that...