Monday, January 14, 2013

"Django Unchained" -- The Spirit of Atticus Finch and Bigger Thomas Out for Revenge

I'm quite looking forward to purchasing the figure of Candie (the white slave-owner from "Django Unchained" played hilariously by Leonardo DiCaprio) once it hits the stores.

Al Sharpton doesn't want you to have one of these...
Trust me: It will be an instant collectors item.

Over at, you can read a take on Django Unchained you will not read anywhere else [DJANGO UNCHAINED—The Birth of a New Nation?, Paul Kersey, 1-14-13]:

The best way to describe Django Unchained is to put it in the context of D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation[Watch The Birth Of A Nation free on the Internet Archive]

Most Americans encounter Griffith’s film—if they encounter it all—in a class on “Pop Culture and Film” in college, where they learn how insidious this movie was for daring to show a far different take on the Reconstruction Period than that currently disseminated throughout the American education system. (Which, coincidentally, is basically what Django Unchained preaches: white people were already prepared to join the Ku Klux Klan in 1860 and were always prepared to unleash vicious dogs a la Bull Connor in Birmingham on black people to keep them in their place).
Perhaps you’ve read about the NAACP Boycott of The Birth of A Nation or President Woodrow Wilson’s alleged remark—after viewing the film in the White House—that “it is like writing history with lightning.”
What is rarely mentioned is this: The Birth of A Nation was a huge commercial success.
As Seymour Stern wrote in the American Mercury magazine in 1949:
The Birth of a Nation (1915) has grossed to date—it is still running—over $48 million, the largest single gross achieved by any one film since the movies began.
Privately financed at a cost of $110,000 (five times more than the cost of any other film made up to this time), it was directed, produced and exhibited by Griffith in complete independence of the Hollywood film "industry," the first monument to free enterprise in the new medium. By the end of the first two years of its career, it had created 25 million new moviegoers—25 million spectators for whom The Birth of a Nation was the first movie.
In today’s dollars, that $110,000 budget is roughly $2.5 million. Compare that to the $100 million production budget for Django Unchained (not to mention the untold millions spent marketing the film).
In contrast, Django was released on Christmas Day (why?), grossing $15 million, with $6.3 million of that coming from blacks. [African Americans Turn Out in Force f or Quentin Tarantino's 'Django Unchained' , by Pamela McClintock, Hollywood Reporter, January 2, 2013. (No data on how the movie is playing with Hispanics is available). It made $30 million its initial weekend out (Dec. 28-30), $20 million the next week, and an estimated mere $11 million this weekend. That’s a fairly rapid fall-off, althoughDjango Unchained may be revived by its five Oscar nominations just announced, including one for Best Picture and Original Screenplay.
Christoph Waltz was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, for doing his best impression of Harper Lee’s good white liberal lawyer protagonist from Harper Lee’s 1960 novel To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s a shame Jamei Foxx didn’t garner a nomination, since his depiction of Django is a useful update of Richard Wright’s tormented white-girl killer in 1940’s Native Son—Bigger Thomas.
In Wright’s novel, black dysfunction is a byproduct of the white power structure and of white racism. This has become the dominant view of race relations in America, epitomized by the 1968 Kerner Commission that blamed white people for the 1960s black uprisings in ChicagoWatts, and Detroit. Our culture is dominated by white managerial elite who view the world like To Kill A Mockingbird’s Atticus Finch. They really believe white privilege dooms black males to the fate of Wright’s Bigger Thomas.
Read the rest at and comment on it here. As always, be sure to share it. In fact, consider "Tweeting" the story to the "Django Unchained" account; Samuel L. Jackson account; and Jaime Foxx account:


Ray Scissom said...

I downloaded Django a week or so when it hit the scene. I didn't do so because I wanted to watch it. I did so in order to create copies for anybody I know who might have gone to the movies or bought a DVD/BluRay and put their money into the pockets of a white-guilt-laden race traitor like Quentin or any of the preach-diversity-from-my-lily-white-gated-community liberals who made this piece of shit possible. I can't stop people from watching it, but I can certainly do my part to make sure they don't pay to do so.

countenance said...


Always take modern Hollywood accounting of what a film "costs" to make and how much money it "grossed" with a grain of salt. Here's why:

Hollywood accounting is mostly a sham to dodge taxes. Ask yourself: How can all these movies that "gross" big money all be such money "losers" yet the studios that made them can still afford to be in business? Now you know why.

Don't expect D.C. to crack down on this scam, b/c Hollywood bundles for Democrats, and Republicans taking action would be branded "anti-Semitic."

Whiskey said...

Those in charge of entertainment would be, off the top of my head, Rupert Murdoch (News Corp/Fox), Japan Inc. (Sony), Sumner Redstone (Viacom/CBS), the British Government (BBC), and critically the agencies who wield enormous clout within Hollywood, along with the foreign buyers who "pre-buy" a bundle of films and provide up-front financing for increasing amounts of films (as Wall Street has largely withdrawn from financing).

This makes pressure more difficult. A guy like Redstone depends on cronyism, in a way that DW Griffith did not, for his success (Viacom/CBS is dependent on the goodwill of government regulators being both broadcast and cable TV channel owners). Murdoch, same (and the tone of Fox News is downright appeasement of Obama). Sony and the BBC (which has more influence than you think) are essentially immune to US domestic pressure are foreign sovereign entities for all practical purposes.

Which leaves as the weak point, the agencies. Which ARE because they are mostly privately owned, and dependent on good will and the public not disliking them, the chink in the armor.

An attack on anti-White, violence inducing movies ought to be: A. Lawsuits against clients like Foxx and Tarantino; B. Lawsuits against the agencies ... in both cases for depraved indifference for things that should be known to induce violence against White people. If someone made a movie inducing White attacks against Blacks today you'd see those lawsuits.

But lawsuits are not enough, family members of victims need to step up the pressure by picketing the offices, schools of children, homes, etc. of both the actors/directors/writers of these movies and the agents.

Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone won't care -- they live in super-wealthy areas with the police in their pocket. Their kids or grandkids go to school in Switzerland. An agent for a mid-level actor, or writer? That's a different story.

bubo said...

Elderly white couple slaughtered in their own home by blacks.

Just another crime that will go unreported in the national press. In Michael "white people are afraid of blacks for no reason" Moore's home state.

Pat Boyle said...

Jamie Foxx enjoys the prospect of killing all white folks. Later he says he was just joking.

OK, consider the rest of this post just a joke also.

I have been writing for some time in this a few other blogs that black people are doomed. Surprisingly, no one has ever asked me what I meant by that. I mean that it seems very likely to me that white people (or perhaps Asians) will exterminate all black people. This isn't a statement of advocacy. It's simply an observation of what looks to be more or less inevitable.

Our tolerance for blacks is sustained by a short series of theories as to why blacks misbehave. These include: "white racism", "the tyranny of lower expectations", and lack of "early childhood stimulation". All of these explanations are fanciful and need to be replaced periodically. But the entire class of racial excuses is getting shopworn. Over time population will come to accept again what has been known for centuries - blacks are genetically inferior.

There are those who dream of taking their personal firearms and attacking their local black ghetto. That won't happen. Nor will they be sent back to Africa or sent to some kind of Nazi style death camps.

None of those measures makes any sense. But we have a precedent. Americans (European colonists) only were able to clear the Hemisphere of most of it's Amerindians through disease. Smallpox and measles which had come to the West from China to Rome as the Antonine Plague, we inadvertently carried to the New World.

We are entering into a period of "designer diseases". Robert Harris predicted a decade ago that white people would soon make a disease that selectively kills only blacks. I think he was right.

The blacks themselves employed a biological weapon to kill all the white people on Haiti. Yellow Fever is an African disease to which Africans have a good deal of natural immunity. Yellow Fever wiped out Napoleon's expeditionary force sent to put down the slave revolt.

Some say that it is impossible to develop a disease that only effects blacks. These are often the same people who insist that race is just a social construct. Why argue? A test is under weigh. There are people testing this hypothesis right now in various biological warfare labs. This of course is just a guess but it seems probable.

One thing to remember is that DNA research needn't be only conducted by governments. It is quite difficult for an individual no matter how rich to build a nuclear weapon. But we know that private individuals can make major contributions to DNA research because of the history of the Human Genome Project and Craig Ventner.

There are no small groups of citizens building their own H-Bombs. But I'd be very surprised if there weren't several small groups working on designer diseases.

DNA is a digital code. Ultimately writing DNA is going to be very much like writing software. We need code editors and error trapping routines but I imagine that the more advanced shops already have these. Code creation and manipulation capability should then follow Moore's Law - doubles every 18 months.

If I'm right about any of this, there are several groups right now working on projects like this. The Chinese are an especially good candidate for working on a weapon that is racially/ethnically selective. The Muslims less so. American private groups are very likely to be in the race. Especially groups who understand the possibility of racially selective weapons and are mindful that the government under a black president may be working to eliminate whites.

In a racial disease race it's hard to see how the blacks can possibly survive. Who wants them? They don't have enough free brain power to compete themselves. Jamie Foxx might want to kill white people but he's hardly much of a threat with a DNA Sequencer.

Black people are doomed.


countenance said...


No need to wait for a designer disease from a lab.

They already by and large have and carry HIV/AIDS.

Once governments and do-gooders can't afford to be giving them ARV drugs anymore, then up goes the body count.

As for Jamie Foxx, he doesn't hate all white people. Watch this:

Notice he says that he tried to sneak into a bar where George Strait was in concert when he himself was 14 years old (obviously, they wouldn't let him in), and this was early in George Strait's career, so he wasn't yet big enough to sell out big stadiums. But now, Foxx runs around saying that his entire adolescence and young adulthood was filled with abuse and racial taunts from white people. Now, it's a strange thing for a victim of such "racial abuse" to try to sneak into a bar filled with the same kind of people who he said were abusing him.

Sheila said...

Pat - no "designer disease" is necessary. Blacks account for 69% of all gonorrhea cases in the US (and these are "official" figures). Subtract the Mexicans and the gays and you have perhaps single digits for heterosexual Whites. Totally drug-resistant gonorrhea is appearing worldwide; the US recently had its first cases. Untreated, gonorrhea causes sterility and various complications that usually lead to death. Of course, black rates of various STDs are mind boggling, yet they continue to churn out chilluns - sort of like the animal that was shot five times recently by the White woman he hoped to rape/rob, yet was still "clinging to life" last I read.

Just let nature take its course. When TSHTF (as it must, sooner or later) and all the Western drug and antibiotic producers are out of business, they'll eventually die off.

I know, not soon enough for me either, but there's truly no conspiracy or designer drug necessary.

Pat Boyle said...

AIDS is an interesting disease. It is largely a disease of virtue - or rather the lack of it. Except for hemophiliacs most of the AIDS victims have some complicity in their status.

If you have AIDS unlike almost every other serious disease part of the culpability is your own.

Bubonic plague, smallpox, or tuberculosis all ravaged a mankind that had no idea what was causing all the deaths. These people had no reliable way to avoid contracting the disease and die. But almost from the first AIDS has been understood and effective countermeasures known.

In previous epidemics and pandemics the effects have been spread to all strata of society. The rain truly fell on the just and the unjust alike. But AIDS struck mostly the unjust - gays, intravenous drug users and blacks. A normal straight married couple had almost no AIDS risk. Society is built on normal families, it can ill afford to lose them. But AIDS victims are much less needed. Their loss is less of a blow to society.

So the idea that AIDS was created by white men to try to exterminate black men is silly. AIDS is far to easy to avoid to be a designer plague.

All you have to do to avoid AIDS is become celibate. Catholic priests have done that for centuries. Sailors in the Age of Sail had no access to women for years. All you have to do is stop injecting yourself with heroin to be safe. Neither of these two remedies is pleasant but they are 100% effective. No such option was available to those persons subject to previous diseases like the Spanish Flu or consumption.

Epidemiologists say that smallpox was the most serious human disease. Smallpox conquered the New World for the white man, so it had a huge social impact. When smallpox hit Rome it marked the beginning of Rome's decline. A third of the population of the city was lost and the virus became endemic in the West.

By this standard even the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed many, many millions wasn't that important. AIDS from a social standpoint is relatively trivial. AIDS loomed large in the minds of homosexuals but for the mainstream of society it was just a passing event.

If there is going to be a purpose built disease it can only be a virus - an air borne virus. A sexually transmitted disease makes a poor weapon. The bubonic phase of plague is likewise too easy to combat with simple rat control. The pneumonic phase is harder to control but is still easy to combat with antibiotics. But modern medicine only has vaccine and a few anti-viral drugs to combat viral diseases. Every year we get a flu vaccine shot and every year we contract a cold. Modern medicine has little power over flu like diseases.

When people get to fighting with diseases, the flu and smallpox viruses will be their weapons.


countenance said...


I once entertained theories that some scientist sympathetic to us cooked up AIDS in a lab to commit a slow near-genocide against blacks. I think the SIV-to-HIV jump theory is a much better theory of how it actually happened, (the only difference is that we're not naive enough not to think that black Africans copulated with monkeys, while polite society says it came from black Africans eating undercooked monkey meat -- Who eats monkey meat regularly?).

But if you were doing the anti-black designer disease thing, it would almost have to be an STI retrovirus like AIDS, simply because blacks just can't help but "get they freak on." You say that AIDS isn't much of a threat to blacks because it's "largely a disease of the lack of virtue" -- Well, hello?

Unless, as you say, you can racially genetically engineer a severe strain of flu/smallpox.

Mr. Rational said...

countenanceI once entertained theories that some scientist sympathetic to us cooked up AIDS in a lab to commit a slow near-genocide against blacks.

That's pure Black "YT is racist" nonsense.  Retroviruses were unknown to science until the discovery of retroviruses around 1980; even the techniques used to discover them had only been invented in the previous decade or so.  We have evidence of deaths from HIV back to the 1950's and before.

Anonymous said...

Weee want Candie ... bop-buh-bop-buh-bop-buh-BOP-BOP ....

Anonymous said...

Ray Scissom: Quentin Tarantino, white guilt? Unlikely. He appears to be an equal opportunity antagonizer. Did you ever see Kill Bill? The white protagonist goes on a revenge spree much like the black protagonist of Django Unchained. Two of the people who fall to her sword are a Japanese person and a black person. I don't think Tarantino makes films that have a message. He seems more interested in films with complicated structures and mixing genres, i.e. he's more interested in the technical and artistic aspects of filmmaking rather than moral or philosophical messages.

Albertosaurus: In America AIDS is a disease of virtue, sure. In Africa not so much. Rape is so common in Africa it may as well not even be called rape. Children are raped before they even hit puberty, all the time. Then they get HIV, oftentimes passing it on to their children. In fact it's a widely held belief in Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV. And the only virgins are children. Disgusting! Marital rape is not a crime in most African countries...the husbands go out and have sex with anything that will let them and some things that won't, then they go home and have sex with their wives, who can't refuse them because if they did the husband would simply leave forever and they would be ostracized by their community. So the wives get HIV too, then the husbands usually leave anyway, because of the diagnosis. The whole continent is such an appalling mess of tropical diseases and social ills...I have no idea why anyone believes that sending foreign aid will help even a little. We should shut down immigration, quit sending buckets of money over that only end up in the hands of local warlords anyway, and let nature take its course the way it always has.

Anonymous said...

*its Amerindians*

Brandon said...

Another movie that opened around the same time as Django Unchained was the most recent adaptation of the musical Les Misérables.

Now that's a movie that I, were I an African-American father (or any father, really) who wanted to give his son a positive experience with some good lessons.

Jean Valjean, the main protagonist, is a basically-moral man before the story begins; he steals a loaf of bread to help feed his sister's child (IIRC), and is jailed for it. After repeatedly trying to break our of prison and seeing his sentence extended as a result, he is finally paroled after nineteen years.

However, in France at this time, people had to carry identity papers, and his indicated that he was a former convict, which meant that he couldn't find work or lodgings.

Here's the pivotal part: when a kindly church bishop trusts him and takes him in for the night, Valjean, figuring that if he's going to be treated like a criminal, he might as well keep behaving like one, tries to steal the bishop's silverware and runs off. He is soon apprehended, and the bishop, in an act of forgiveness that changes the lives of Valjean and everyone he comes in contact with thereafter for the better, forgives him and insists that Valjean lead an honest life.

That's just the first act of the story, but I can hardly think of a better message for a young man who might be leaning toward criminality just because everyone around him assumes that that's the kind of person he'll be. Ultimately this story becomes about the rewards of moral virtue and of helping others. It's a great story and I wish I'd been exposed to it sooner.

Anonymous said...

"Quentin Tarantino, white guilt? Unlikely. He appears to be an equal opportunity antagonizer."

Tarantino is a pathetic, negro-worshiping, politically-correct DWL. If you ever saw him as a guest-judge on American Idol a few years back, then you would know.

"Kill Bill" does not demonize blacks or Asians.
"Django Unchained" DOES demonize whites.
And "Inglorious Bastards" plays the tried-and-true Nazi-card for the billionth time.

AnalogMan said...

Pat/Albertosaurus: I always enjoy, and mostly agree with your comments; one of the exceptions being your recent comment that negroes in motion are a "thing of beauty". Negroes are ugly, whether at rest, in motion, or under lipstick. And while I'm setting up your fan club here, let me also say I love your use of the language. I haven't seen "under weigh" in years!

But I have to agree with countenance ("Well, hello?"). AIDS is, on its face, the perfect functional equivalent of a designer plague. It just doesn't seem to be very efficacious. Maybe that's due to Dubya's "President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief", but I doubt it. That's just $15 billion of your tax money per year uselessly down the drain.

In the end, though, we don't need a designer plague. Africa has enough diseases already. All that is required, as anon @ 1:32 says, is (1) stop importing Africans into White countries, and (2) leave them to their own devices in Africa. Stop feeding them.

Quarantine Africa.

Problem solved.

Pat Boyle said...

AnalogMan Wrote:

I always enjoy, and mostly agree with your comments; one of the exceptions being your recent comment that negroes in motion are a "thing of beauty". Negroes are ugly, whether at rest, in motion, or under lipstick.

For those who deny that white people like to watch black men in sports, how do you account for Michael Jordan or any of the other hundreds of millionaire black athletes.

Personally I'm not attracted to black women unless they are very, very white. Halle Berry isn't light enough for me.

Similarly almost all black men have coarse facial features. I never could figure out why the press considers Denzel Washington handsome. The man has no chin.

That brings us back to Michael Jordan. He is not good looking and judging from his public persona in commercials , he has a surly disagreeable personality (too much fame?). Yet he is undoubtedly popular. I think those who have seen him play remember how he looked driving towards the basket. They remember seeing him in motion. What else could it possibly be?

I picked Jordan because I never saw him play even on TV. His presence in a TV commercial evokes no pleasant memories in me as it obviously does in others. When I see him idolized on TV I find it grotesque - he has such an unattractive personality.

Face it, black men's route to power is through sports. White people like to watch black people run and jump - they are very damn good at running and jumping. Little else.

You should also face the disagreeable fact that many white women find black men attractive. No men - white, black or Asian - find black women attractive but black men are definitely attractive to many white women.

How do I know this? One simple way is to notice the dating ads posted by women on the Web. Some white women specify that they only want black men to respond. Almost no women want Asian men. I have never seen an ad requesting only Asian men to respond.

We know that in Africa the village women do almost all the work while they support their idle men whom they prize for their "beauty". Many like me find this incredible because, as you say, these men are to my eyes extremely ugly. They look coarse and bestial.

Some theorists say this is because black men have higher testosterone levels and this may be sensed by women. Higher T Levels may also be the reason why black women are so universally rejected in favor of any other kind of woman. Humans are not conclusively known to have any consistent pheromone response but the vomeronasal organ in women may be sensitive to testosterone. So that musk that you smell from a group of blacks may be purposeful. Animal musk is included in perfumes for much the same reason - sexual attraction.

If you're going to be a Race Realist you have to face other realities besides IQ.


Anonymous said...

Don't get mad because a white guy not only directed but wrote a film about a black guy killing a load of white guys, and setting a load of black slaves free! not to mention, having a white ally who helps him kill a lot of white guys, but dies in vain haha :( I am a white American (covers face) and why can't we accept as a race that we are an evil one, and always have been? can't we strive to do better thoug! I salute you Quentin for not hiding away anything and exposing the wickedness of our caucasion race. Also thanks for doing it in inglorious bastards too. Please write more films about the malice of us white people and expose our iniquity. Furthermore on behalf of our race, more of us need to die, because the majority of us are filth, white trash. However spare me, as I'm a multiculturalist with a Native American wife and kids, with adopted black and filipino children. Yes, it's one hell of a rainbow family. PS I want you Kerry Washington.

Peter Whitfield, Greenbay Wisconsin, currently residinng in Wellington, New Zealand. :)

Anonymous said...

Yet another Kersey fail-Django should be required viewing. Not to mention it has done over 257 million at the box office and going northward. I love it. Django seems to be "Stuff Kersey Doesnt like." He does like, however, selective omissions and falsifications. General rule: if Kersey says it, the opposite take is most often true. He must love the taste of shoe polish though. Every young person, especially, should see Django.

Mr_Right said...

"An attack on anti-White, violence inducing movies ought to be: A. Lawsuits against clients like Foxx and Tarantino; B. Lawsuits against the agencies ... in both cases for depraved indifference for things that should be known to induce violence against White people."

Sure, Whiskey, this is a wonderful idea -- if your goal is to attack and destroy the bank account of whoever puts up all the filing costs and lawyers' fees.

The problem is that every one of these lawsuits is guaranteed to get thrown out by some prissy activist judge who arrogantly refuses to ignore your total lack of evidence that this movie has ever induced anyone of any color anywhere to commit an act of violence.