The anti-white propaganda film 12 Years A Slave won Oscars not based on
merit, but based on politics. This comes straight from the LA Times.
Two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see 12 Years a Slave but
voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they
felt obligated to do so.
More Here: Your Daily Dose of Conservatism
Its too bad that animated movies are put in different categories from other feature films. If not then Disney's "Frozen" would have blown 12 Years A Slave and every other movie out of the water easily.
ReplyDeleteTwelve years a slave was a lousy movie. The useless limousine-liberals falling all over themselves fool no one, not even themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe worst part is that they'll show this in schools. New generations of Northerners will be brought up hate and resent Dixie.
ReplyDeleteI gotta wait for it to come out to Red Box.
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about the film being "anti-white" as you say, but come to think about it, I noticed a decided lack of white actors portraying slaves in the film.
ReplyDeleteSo lawyers can be just as disingenuous as anyone else if there's a point to me made, huh... White actors not portraying slaves isn't anti-white, Mr. Young. What a ludicrous claim for an educated man (who is neck deep in racial issues in this country) to make. Anti-white means portrayals of white people as evil, cruel, exploitative, (or stupid, dumb, moronic) etc, It can be enhanced by portraying blacks, especially slaves, as virtuous for no reason other than the notion that being oppressed confers virtue...(It doesn't.)
ReplyDeleteBTW, I didn't say the film is anti-white. Somebody named Sophia at Your Daily Dose of Conservatism (I posted a link) wrote that.
I don't know if the film is anti-white -- I haven't seen it -- but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. My point in posting the link was to illustrate the level to which political correctness has inspired dishonesty. Voting for a film one hasn't seen because it is politically correct to do so (and would be "wacist" not to) is a sad commentary on our culture and a lowering of the prestige of the Academy Award.
Incidentally, I don't agree with Sophia that the film won solely because of its left-wing propaganda value. But I do think that played a huge role in its win -- and in its popularity.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the film is anti-white, depends on who sees it. Now, the film is meant to be controversial, no doubt. But because most people aren't intellectuals, the "meaningful dialogue" it was meant to spark, degenerates into resentment and bitterness.. In the end, Blacks resent Whites even more than they already do. While Northerners feel justified in treating Southerners as though they have the intellects of small children, or are little better than animals. Both of which I have experienced from Northern visitors, personally. Simple fact is, Northern rule over America isn't going to last forever. Like the old Soviet Union, it's a relic of the past. Northerners are in for a tough time. Stirring up animosities is going to make it worse
ReplyDeleteI, however, did see the film, and I am fully convinced that it "won" solely because of its left-wing propaganda value. The movie stinks. The acting is forced, stilted, and exaggerated, the characters are all pathetic, vapid, silly caricatures, the dialogue is shallow, predictable, and uninspiring, and the plot is contrived drivel. Again, the movie just plain stinks. There is, however, a curious sense of irony in the film. In the scenes depicting Northrup as a freeman, he is dressed very handsomely, and he is often wearing very fine cotton shirts. One can't help but wonder where the cotton for those splendid shirts came from. Perhaps from the kind of plantation where Northrup would later work? Looks like 'old Solomon got a taste of some poetic justice.
ReplyDelete