Oscars Recap & Commentary

I’ve been away for a bit, primarily working on other projects, secondarily working on developing a pipeline of blog material that will be timely/thought provoking/interesting for my dear readers while giving serious thought to the direction that this platform will take over the next few months. So, please pardon my dust.

I had the displeasure of attending an Oscars viewing party yesterday night.  While I am typically loathe to partake of such thoroughly dildofied spectacles, the invitation came from a work colleague and I figured that it would be best to take this one on the chin and put in some face time.  The 2016 Oscars was more dreadful than I could have even anticipated, highlighting just how disconnected from reality and dour the ((entertainment establishment)) has become.  We are currently in an era wherein the entertainer’s greatest sin is that of merely wanting to be entertaining.  One must make a statement, one must pay lip service to the issue du jour, one must genuflect before the secular deities of tolerance and inclusivity.  Chris Rock was brutally unfunny as host, immediately launching into an insulting and frankly abusive monologue about lynchings, racism, and oppressive whiteness. . .before imploring the white Hollywood elites to open the gibsmedat spigot for the considerably less agentic black Hollywood elites  Upper echelon rent seeking.  It was all quite brain dead.

Rock’s main gripe is the gripe of every mediocre actor/entertainer of color in the industry: Hollywood fails to provide sufficient opportunities for non-white (read: black) actors, resulting in an #Oscarssowhite predicament year after year.  The remedy for this great injustice is to arbitrarily cast non-white black actors in a greater number of roles regardless of whether or not the castings make narrative sense.  Thus, Hollywood’s mandate is not to produce films that are thematically interesting, phenomenally plotted, impeccably acted, or visually sensual.  These elements do not a good movie make, according to the envious shills of color. Rather, a film’s goodness rests almost solely upon the extent to which its cast is diverse as determined by whatever metric these goons may happen to cook up.

As usual, this is a case of basic people coming to basic conclusions and proposing simplistic fixes due to their inability to think critically or logically. To them, the importance of the Oscars is merely symbolic.  They do not view it as an event shaped by other more. .  pragmatic. . .consideration$.  So, if there are insufficient numbers of black people cast into Oscarworthy roles, it’s not because the market is at best agnostic to diversity and at worst doesn’t give a fuck about it, it’s not because black celluloid offerings are generally vapid, trite, and poorly acted-it’s because the Academy is full of old white racists actively discriminating against black people because. . .reasons.

However, this is their mistake: their failure to understand what the Oscars truly are.  While the Academy Awards is ostensibly an event aimed at recognizing excellence in film making from a more artistic rather than commercial perspective, the films that are ultimately made must nevertheless scratch that proverbial (commercial) itch.  That is to say: the movie made purely for the sake of the art is an increasingly uncommon one and directors and actors are keen to work on and star in movies that not only pique the interest of the Academy, but also appeal to consumers further downstream.  Furthermore, producers are not interested in financing films unlikely to yield a significant return.  Why else would Inarritu have done his damnedest to snag Leonardo DiCaprio for the lead when Chris Pine or even Idris Elba would have arguably performed just as capably?  Because DiCaprio is certified box office platinum.  When he’s in a movie, he puts asses in seats and puts money in bank accounts. This is far less true of the other two. As the moviegoing public is still predominantly white, it prefers to consume movies starring actors they can recognize and identify with.

Artistically, Stuff Black People Like tends to be pedestrian and one note, with black audiences overwhelmingly responding to features like the Friday series, the Barbershop series, biopics about famous black people, and musical movies (think Dreamgirls) or movies about music (think Straight Outta Compton).  Their tastes don’t run particularly esoteric or experimental or conceptual (think Jonze’s Her or Garland’s Ex Machina). While the black movies listed may be somewhat commercially successful (even this is questionable, because the subject matter and the casts mean that these movies’ popularity will be limited to largely black audiences), they will for obvious reasons never be lauded by the Academy.  The problem here is very sharp.  Due to the expressed preferences of both black and white audiences, directors and producers committed to solving Hollywood’s “diversity problem” are forced to either sacrifice art for representation (no Oscars) or to sacrifice representation for art (no dollars).  You can guess how that tension is frequently resolved.  As Leo said in that other movie for which he was unceremoniously robbed: “money talks and bullshit rides the bus.”

The artistic and the commercial are inextricably linked, and black themed movies generally fail on both counts.  Enough black actors in a movie, and you already know what the movie will be like. These affairs are highly predictable.  The problem here is that black audiences don’t like the kinds of films that are either artistic enough to merit Academy recognition or broadly appealing enough to merit being made.


Hollywood is pozzed beyond redemption.  You’ll find no quarrel with me on that point. But, consider the range of subject matter in the films nominated for best picture this year:

  • Bridge of Spies (a movie about the Cold War)
  • Mad Max: Fury Road (a dystopian action film)
  • Revenant (a historical drama about American trappers set in 1823)
  • Spotlight (a movie about journalists uncovering sexual abuse in the Catholic Church)
  • The Martian (space travel)
  • The Big Short (a movie about the root causes of the 2008 financial crisis)
  • Room (a movie about a woman kidnapped and held hostage in a room with her son)
  • Brooklyn (a movie about an Irish immigrant living in 1950’s Brooklyn)

Which, if any of these films would appeal to a black audience?  One of Rock’s prerecorded sets provides us with an answer: precisely zero. In this segment, when asked if they’d heard of some of the pictures nominated like Bridge of Spies or Trumbo, the black individuals polled expressed bemused confusion. One even went as far as to accuse Rock of making the movie up. The one movie that all of the assorted blacks watched?  Straight Outta Compton.

Which serious director wants to toil to film the millionth MLK biopic?  Which ambitious actor wants to make a name for himself working in music themed movies and Barbershop spinoffs?  All of these BLM “we need more diversity in Hollywood” types fail to recognize the importance of the market in determining what gets produced and what doesn’t; who gets cast and who doesn’t.  The Academy will never be able to review movies not made due to lack of commercial viability. At the end of the day-in a roundabout way-the Oscars are about dollars and cents.  Who calls the shots in Hollywood?  The same ((ones)) who make the racist bottom line casting decisions in order to generate the most revenue while skating off scot free and letting white people hold the bag and play defense against a vast horde of ungrateful grievance mongers.

Advertisements

Critical Fash

Q: What’s a young shitlord to do when he’s trapped in the foul heart of the Cathedral and can’t get out?

A: Remain a crypto-shitlord, dropping the occasional HBD bomb when the occasion presents itself during class lectures?

B: Go full shitlord, counter signal like mad in the student newspaper, and ready the popcorn?


My ultra dildo alma mater is currently embroiled in a brouhaha over a pair of articles written by a Mussolini in the making who apparently failed to realize that the wages of badthink at such an institution is social death.  He now finds himself excommunicated and excoriated; even the Huffington Post has come to sup at the table of his disgrace. Quite the escalation, considering that this is a relatively minor campus level escapade.

It’s important to note that one of his columns was completely expunged from the website. From what I could gather, it was an article suggesting that indigenous peoples should appreciate the benefits of colonialism. To my chagrin, I could find nary a cache nor an archive.Thus, my commentary will be limited to the one article still available on the interwebz.

First, a threshold question: what is a kid like this doing at a university like Brown? Brown prides itself on attracting a “diverse” student body of “free thinkers” who will eventually graduate and “challenge the status quo.” Methinks however, that it has begun to believe its own mythology. Brown, and its thoroughly pozzed Ivy League compatriots have long ceased to be places of intellectual inquiry, diverse thought, and freely exchanged ideas. They are now no more than leftist finishing schools for lucky sperm and the occasional bitter diversity tokens, propounding naught but equalist dogma, demanding complete and utter adherence to the orthodoxy of the current year. Divergent thought is dealt with quickly and harshly. This was the case even while I was there and it has become even more problematic (heh) in the intervening years. It would seem that our fashy goy has made a terrible error in this regard and as a result, has committed himself to four years of leftist purgatory. I’d feel sorry for the kid, if I didn’t suspect that he knows what he’s doing.

Now on to the article. In “The White Privilege of Cows,” our (semi) pseudonymous M. Dzhali Maier grapples with the interplay between evolution, race, and social outcomes. His thesis is a simple one, clear and unobjectionable in every way to the non retarded: evolution endowed certain peoples with certain abilities. This fact, and this fact alone is the root cause of the unequal outcomes that are especially pronounced in an ethnically diverse society such as ours. The nature of his heresy is apparent on its face: daring to dispute the validity of the common wisdom dictating that everyone is basically the same and that social inequality is due only to the bogeyman of white privilege while simultaneously being impudent enough to assert that race is a biological reality that heavily influences ability, which in turn influences group outcomes.

The cringing editor’s note goes out of its way to fall on its sword for publishing an opinion piece that “relied on the repeatedly disproven premise that race is a biological category,” going so far as to include a link to a book denying the existence of a biological basis for race written by a fellow whose name is echoey enough to suggest that he is likely a member of a tribe that would stand to directly benefit from the left’s depredations against the study of racial & biological differences as a legitimate field of socio-scientific inquiry.


People like these can’t bear to consider that inequality is, and will ever be, a feature of the human condition. We are not all the same. They can’t bring themselves to analyze the facts, lest the facts present them with several unbearable truths: that human inequality is intractable and deep-rooted, that human differences cannot be erased with dem programs, and that genetics is (in many ways) destiny. These differences go beyond the merely phenotypical. The mere notion that readily observable traits that are distributed unequally and at random across different human populations could lead to disparate outcomes between these groups could be linked to race is so anathema to bonehead leftists that they decry a completely innocuous opinion piece exploring these themes as racist, even though nothing negative was said about peoples of any race. To even make a racially tinged but indisputably factual observation as it relates to the historical record and the evolution of groups of people is to be, in some way, supremacist.

The suggestion that some groups were better able to develop and sustain civilizations while others remain to this day incapable of developing rudimentary agriculture due to genetic differences that are often positively correlated with race is crimethink, a fash-out that will be neither forgiven nor forgotten at Brown.


Edit: 10/08/2015 3:34 PM: It appears our shitlord is actually a female autiste. I’ve also obtained a copy of her deleted article, which is attached below.

Columbian Exchange Day

Tribe and Consciousness

Executed is accurate.

Executed is accurate.

Humans will always be tribal creatures whether they admit it or not; whether they realize it or not. Some human groups are better able than others to sublimate raw tribal responses to certain events to make possible the achievement of higher, more abstract philosophical or moral values, i.e. equality, justice, fairness, etc. While some groups busily apply themselves to the task of transcending tribe and muting the racial consciousness generally accompanying the recognition of tribe, other groups busily apply themselves to the task of cementing tribal loyalties, blood and kinship ties, and developing a strong sense of racial awareness. Tribalism is primal and it precedes all other considerations: it comes before a sense of absolute right and wrong, before empathy, and subordinates all other competing loyalties (e.g., nationalism).

Whites tend to be more altruistic than tribal, opting to move away from tribe and to connect with members of other groups on an individual (human) level. This attitude even extends to non human creatures. Whites are more willing to put themselves in other’s shoes, even if the person or people in question are not a part of their tribe. In contrast, non white groups tend to view things exclusively in terms of tribe, their reactions to events likelier to be tempered based upon the individuals involved and their roles in these events. Nothing highlights this difference better than the recent events in Roanoke and the reactions to it compared to the events in Charleston and the reactions to it. Specifically, I want to call attention to the reactions to it by race.

In Roanoke, two white people were murdered in cold blood by a black man who recorded the murders with a Go Pro and then uploaded the footage onto various social media networks before killing himself. The Charleston events are already well known: nine black people were murdered in a church in cold blood by a white man accused of harboring “racist” white nationalist aspirations. After Charleston, there was an immediate outpouring of shock and grief not only from black Americans (which was to be expected), who everywhere decried the killings and denounced Roof as a “white terrorist” who was intent upon slaying blacks due to his “racist” beliefs, but from Americans as a whole-particularly from white Americans-who viewed what transpired as a national tragedy, a corporate wounding striking America at its heart. Nine people massacred as they worshiped: regardless of how faithless this nations has become, everyone recognized how repugnant the act was.

Naturally, black people used Charleston as evidence to advance the narrative that they were under siege by America, and as ridiculous as this contention was, liberal white America went along with it, reluctant to object in a moment of black grief and national sorrow. This response was also to be expected: putting yourself in another’s shoes, to empathize, to feel the pain that others feel is natural to whites. We’re all Americans here, was the thought. To further demonstrate solidarity, whites even helped to curtail speech liberties, to desecrate cultural patrimony, and to erase parts of their national history.

Contrast this reaction with the reaction triggered by the happenings in Roanoke. Black Americans have been uniformly silent on the issue. No outpouring of grief from black people appeared on social media, no expressions of sorrow, no recognition that these murders were a sort of human tragedy, or at the very least, an American one. All that can be heard from blacks is the sound of silence. One would be hard pressed to find a single indictment of the character of the black shooter, or anything attributing his vile acts to some sort of racial deficiency or to racially motivated malevolence, as was done when Roof committed his murders. The most black people were willing to do in response to the Roanoke tragedy was to tepidly call for gun reform on social media. Simply put, the murders of two white people mattered not a whit to the average black because (1) they were killed by a black man and (2) because the victims weren’t black. To them, this was a “gun control issue,” if that. And of course, some sick fuck was on hand to callously racialize the issue, asking: “are we afraid to watch white people dying?”


This was all to be expected. Black people are amongst the most tribal and race conscious people on Earth. This is not necessarily a negative thing, as this is a healthy human mindset for all peoples. But there was something peculiar about the reaction to Roanoke: the response, or rather lack thereof of white people. White people viewed what transpired as tragic, for sure, but the response to what happened was muted beyond that recognition. There was no feeling that something important was lost, that white people are under attack, or that something is seriously wrong with America. Two members of the tribe had been felled by a hate-filled member of another tribe and there was no collective anguish, no feeling that something truly tragic had occurred, that white people had been violated in some way. Roanoke was sad, but then it was business as usual.

This disconnect from blood is a great problem. It is one thing for a tribe to be callous towards the lives of members of another tribe, to live in perfect mutual antagonism towards each other. It’s another thing to be empathetic to another tribe that hates your tribe, all the while professing not to recognize that the concept of tribe exists at all, all while members of your tribe are being picked off by members of other hostile tribes. This is madness. This is suicidal. Tribe matters. Tribe exists. There is power in tribe, and every other tribe recognizes this fact. Even if liberal white people don’t care about tribe, tribe cares very much about liberal white people. And competing tribes have been very clear about their desires to dispatch whites for the crime of belonging to a warring tribe that whites don’t even see themselves as being a part of. Possessing the liberal goodwhite card won’t save whites from the law of the jungle.

Racial unconsciousness is fast becoming an untenable position, one likely to end in annihilation. Only through an awakening to the realities of the world can white people begin to fight. This is not about humanity, it’s not about national solidarity, it’s not about empathy: it’s about the bonds of  blood. This is primal, and so it must be. Everyone else has come to that realization and feel secure enough to advocate for their race from that position. There’s no reason for whites not to feel the same.