Agreed. And companies keep doing this, and losing money. They should be sued by their stockholders, who, by law have to produce profits for their shareholders. I will not watch any of the woke crap, and my son was brought up right, and he won't either. I would love to see a conservative company needs to produce a movie with a white Martin Luther King, or white Rosa Parks - and just watch the outrage...
The same. Fiction and movies should be plausible above all. If they aren't plausible, they aren't good. Even of its fantasy, it still can be logical and plausible.
Woke is Marxist at its core and seeks some nirvana where “ differences” are no longer a differentiator among humans so men can be women, blacks can be whites and people can even be effing flurries if they want to.
Yet their way of getting there, identity politics and tribalism, defeats their ideal state of one species.
The construct of the “browning” of the world by mass race immigration and promoting inter racial procreation as “cool” gets to the point where black males + white females = brown off spring as the norm and replicating those genes across populations
Marxists and globalist social architects hate whiteness and I had a Jewish friend tell me once that as the human race becomes more mongralized that then Gods chosen people will be the last man standing for domination
Interesting, I didn't think of interracial marriages with this regard. But still, those marriages are largely minority, so the Left are failing there hopefully.
I would submit that most interracial babies are not conceived in nuclear family structure. Black fathers that procreate with white women just as with black women don’t take care of the offspring but place the burden on the taxpayer
I’m less bothered by interracial children than by children of any race increasingly and deliberately brought up by single mothers.
And it’s pretty offensive to imply that all black men—or even a majority of them—abandon their offspring. I know several black men who are outstanding husbands and fathers, including a single father raising two incredible daughters. Let’s elevate men like that as role models for the next generation.
Re-reading that, I realize that my two paragraphs appear to contradict one another. For single mothers, I mean teenagers who elect to keep their babies. I don’t really count teenage boys as men, or expect them to step up, get married and take on a family at 16. These days, I DO expect every mother of a teenage girl to get her on birth control. Take her in for a depo-provera shot or an IUD if you think she won’t consistently take a pill.
Very good points, agreed. Though as a man I lament gross irresponsibility of teenage boys too but teenage girls as future mothers have greater responsibility, agreed.
The thing is this: The Woke are engaging the "white to black" role reversals to make their point, yes, but they're also pushing their agenda far up our collective a$$. Yet there's hardly ANY pushback from conservatives. As always, they remain complacent and let this sh|t continue. I have noticed, though, a few conservative production companies coming out with their own non-Woke movies - Angel Studios is one, and Daily Wire I believe has done so as well. But this isn't really enough to stop the Woke 'white to black' role & history reversals. I don't really have any concrete answers except to boycott everything Woke. But I LOVE the idea of a White actor playing MLK or Nelson Mandela. Turn about is absolutely fair play.
Yeah, exactly, and Woketards wouldn't have a moral right to scream 'Racism!' then when they were engaging into this shit for a long while. Well, they still would ofc, but no one with eyes and a brain will take them seriously this time around, as people took them during BLM.
Why there's no meaningful conservative opposition to this shit I also don't fully understand. Before I thought it's because conservatives lack Big Money which the Left with their Hollywood and Disney and Netflix have but now when Elon Musk is Trump's right hand, money shouldn't be a problem. Cancel culture isn't such an issue now as it was four years ago too, then why?
Perhaps conservatives don't think it's that important and are more focused on opposing transing of kids and illegal immigration. Fair enough, but all the Woke agenda is tied though, and every part of it is harmful and promotes the same idea of first discrimination and then absurdities. First Woke movies brainwashed people, and then people began to accept actual Woke policies, so it's all tied and hence I believe it's important to counter Woke movies with their Blackwashing too.
Meaningful conservative opposition... That lies within the conservative values. In general, conservatives believe in among other freedoms, free speech. All too often we sit back and respect the rights of others, until it becomes too late. Possibly why we allowed the Quran in School. I think where we are late to the game, it's realizing that the other side doesn't give us the same considerations.
I have no statistics to back any of this up, it's just my own personal observation.
Well, I mostly agree with you. In their noble naivete conservatives assume that other side despite all their disagreements respect core American values like freedom and human rights, just like them. But the key point is they don't.
The Left would stop at nothing to destroy their opponents and push their agenda and certainly wouldn't consider conservative freedoms and rights ever.
Meaningful conservative opposition... That lies within the conservative values. In general, conservatives believe in among other freedoms, free speech. All too often we sit back and respect the rights of others, until it becomes too late. Possibly why we allowed the Quran in School. I think where we are late to the game, it's realizing that the other side doesn't give us the same considerations.
I have no statistics to back any of this up, it's just my own personal observation.
Remember, you are not allowed to have a kinky perm because that is 'cultural appropriation.' So is wearing African style clothing. "Do not say that All lives matter.' All of that is cultural appropriation.
But, by all means, turn white characters black, and call it history.
This is such hypocrisy when compared with their stance of calling out and not allowing “ cultural appropriation” . A few years ago we had a local theater company cancel several performances of a play because a trans character was played by a straight man and the woke crowd went nuts. But a white person played by a black is justified as just artistic license.
The whole “Wakanda” (or should it be pronounced. “Wokanda?”) incident is almost hilarious. Some ignorant black folk have been citing the “reality” of Wakanda to “prove” that sub Saharan Africans have been on the cutting edge of technology!
This is similar to the Bridgerton phenomenon, where people are under the delusion that Charlotte of Mecklenburg was black, based on one portrait and a Moorish ancestress 14 generations previous. It’s ludicrous.
It seems really racist. Do the people making these decisions realise that?
Have they ever thought about just telling stories written by black people, I’m sure there are plenty of stories from Africa that could be made into interesting films?
Do they think black people don’t have any good stories?
If you are going to capitalize the word Black when referring to a subset of humans you should also capitalize the word White when referring to a different subset. It makes it seem like you've been captured by the Woke thought police without realizing it. A small point, I realize, but to some of us it keeps us on an even keel and only seems fair.
The other reason that I watch old movies and lots of British mystery and drama shows produced prior to Woke, is the towns and characters are the "color" of what the makeup of society was in that particular place and time. With Woke TV you get Blacks being the boss or "brains" and Whites the underlings. To add insult to injury, this same ideology and DEI insanity will install Blacks into positions that they are often unable to succeed in. As a father whose daughter teaches math grades 9-12, she explains that they "pass" the unworthy by means of an exaggerated curve just to move them through the system. The obvious results can be seen in the people that can't manage a city let alone a Fortune 500 company. Make-believe and reality should never be mixed. Logic and reason applied it's advancement via Merit; no curve just a A-B-C-D-E standard grading system that was established many decades ago. Color isn't a factor at all. Just the facts, please.
White people desire a “sun-tanned” appearance; Black people see “white-like” features as good in Blacks (Vanessa Williams, Haley Berry, Kerry Washington, etc)
Many people want to be something they are not... I don’t see this as an afront to white culture anymore than straights who portrays homosexuals in movies or TV as an assault on the homosexual life.
Porgy and Bess was written as an all Black Operetta and it is good (IMO) but the Black market is much smaller than all the others combined. There is a huge advantage for Blacks to portray White characters:
- story is already written
- audience is familiar with the story
- its different than a standard portrayal
- capture a different viewership
- easier sell to the investors
I feel that its more about the money than anything else.
Well, I still disagree. Straight men do not look different from gay ones so it's more believable than seeing Blacks portraying whites. Also, how many bisexual men are there? No one knows. So those 'straight' actors who portray gay men might in truth be bisexual.
This is the main fault with stereotypical thinking - people see a man dates a woman and assume he's straight though he might be bisexual, or see him dating a man and assume he's gay though he might be bisexual too.
Also my article provides more serious reasons why is it dangerous, racist and destructive.
Your article was excellent and I actually agreed with much of it. The part I am grappling with is the coordination of the movement. As an aside, I was married to a gay woman and had no idea... married for more than 25 years... so “yes” its hard to tell the difference.
My conveyance was not concise and thats my error. The point I was attempting to express is that many people want to be something different and if what they wish to alter is immutable, that is when trouble takes hold.
Most movements begin with traits that can’t or are difficult to change... color of skin, male or female, the natural color of your hair, birth parents, et al. These movements grow backwards; first they start with a specific example and then apply that example to the immutable characteristics. Example: a choke hold is applied to a person of color and that person expires. That particular act gets associated with all Blacks (this doesn’t mean all Blacks agree with the association) being bullied, harassed, discriminated and so on. Its a post hoc fallacy to the highest level which makes it manufactured and not grassroots.
I agree with your premise, I just don’t know how the movement starts or who decides to start it. My lack of understanding doesn’t mean that I disagree with you but I also feel that there is a preexisting underlying angst of people wishing to be something different.
Maybe your wife wasn't gay but bisexual at least if she was able to live with you for so long?😉
Yeah I see where are you coming and agree but I believe those who started this movement - Woke racist Marxists - started it with nefarious purpose indeed, and I explained why in the article.
I agree with nefarious purpose but I just don’t understand how any movement starts, it has to have massive coordination. I am not denying this is happening, in fact I agree... I am bewildered how it works.
Keep the intriguing articles coming; I will be a paid Subscriber in a few days.
By the way, my ex and I never discussed bisexuality, but when I asked what she preferred male or female, she responded by saying she preferred to be with a dog (she had a little sawed off puppy).
I think different movements start differently - some from bottom to top and some from top to bottom.
Thanks again, I deeply appreciate it!
Hm, I hope your wife didn't mean to be with a dog sexually xD But overall I understand her - I prefer animals to people too now, they're much more loyal and much less troublesome!
He/she who frames the debate wins the debate. What this woke movement has created are the “ground rules”. What they (the movement) are promoting is the inclusion, the counter of inclusion is exclusion. When a person or group excludes anything, those individuals/groups appear to be bias and/or prejudice. Lines are drawn at the very beginning, discussions get conflated and what is ultimately argued are characteristics of the people debating and not the subject.
Look at George Floyd, he went from a person being detained by authorities to victim to being a poster boy for BLM. The ultimate goal was to use his death to promote civil disorder, defund the police, and vote for Democrats.
The entire episode went from something very specific (death while in custody) to a broad general topic(s) of pitting authoritative Whites, who are privileged racists, against the centuries old downtrodden Blacks.
Partial truths on all sides of this scenario but the dye was casted when it became White versus Black... everything else was a lead up to the argument that are grounded in immutable conditions (color of one’s skin).
There are deviations with the Whites and the Blacks... you have Whites that totally side with the plight of the Blacks and Blacks who are critical of constantly harping on the Whites. Listen to those exceptions and who sounds like the voice of reason?
- many individuals want to be different from their current self... they are willing to do something different.
- these individuals are susceptible to propaganda and will minimize their due diligence regarding the facts.
- the weaker people have not seen themselves as a shaker or mover but want to be.
- those who want to be will embrace an idea that can provide them with a bump in status.
- when accepted they hang on to this new level with passion and ignore opposing viewpoints.
- then they are captured by groups along the lines of BLM.
- the groups provide an echo chamber while they themselves are an echo chamber for the group.
In short, the group is not grassroots, the group has an endgame that is not shared with the recruits and the recruits are happy within the group but can’t function outside of it. This is one of the major contributors to the alienating taking place in in nuclear families. Newly found “power” is the worst, its like handing an A-15 to an eight year old. There were multiple situations these past 4 years... COVID, Trump derangement, the Ukrainian war, the hatred for Russia, inflation... all them were in play and none of it is good.
* this is difficult for me to convey in text messages; conversing is much better as ideas and ways of expressing opinions is allowed to marinate off each other.
Ok, I think I got your point now and agree overall. You're very thoughtful and nice person.
Ironically, for me it's better to express my thoughts in writing, in conversation I might get a bit shy, clumsy, distracted... That's why I became a writer I suppose.
Exactly, it was my initial point - it looks absurd and violates plausibility of the story, just if like kids were playing old people, giants - dwarves, and so on. But as I explained, they deliberately make it absurd to make us disbelieve our eyes.
EXACTLY. I was looking forward to the movie about Mary Queen of Scots—till they inserted an Asian lady-in-waiting, which was so patently absurd that it vaulted me right out of the story. I switched it off and never went back. Same with Gentleman in Moscow, where his best childhood friend was…black? Because black people were so common in turn-of-the-20th-century Russia? And yes, I am aware of Pushkin. That doesn’t change the general demographics.
I have less of a problem with black elves or mermaids since they’re mythical anyway. But don’t make a historical drama and shoehorn in people who were not there.
I have watched Mary Queen of Scots too and yeah it was totally historically inaccurate and they made it worse by presenting it as a historical movie (not fiction!) which implies historical accuracy.
This being said I have a problem with Black Elves abd dryads too. They're not real but they're still a product of our culture, not African one. Moreover for example dryads as Nordic forest creatures would be even impossible in African deserts, jungles and Savannah - there's no environment for them even.
Coming back to Mary of Scotts, they featured gay drag character here and Mary was fully 'accepting' him despite he tried to steal her husband. Now, I am a gay guy but I am aware that back at that time society was pretty homophobic, and I don't want this homophobia to be erased - in the contrary, we must remember it so never to repeat. Those movies erase actual homophobia and make it seem that gays were never persecuted which isn't true.
Now, I'm willing to accept that raised in France which decriminalized homosexuality already Mary might indeed have been more tolerant and accepting towards gays. But still, to fully embrace in a truly modern Woke fashion a gay guy who tried to steal her husband? Gosh, as a queen she wouldn't have embraced even a woman who would have tried to do so!
P. S. Pushkin also was a mulatto, biracial, not Black, and yeah he was largely an exception.
I hear what you’re saying re the mythical characters. I will admit that when Disney cast a black actress as the little mermaid, I giggled at the thought that someone living at the bottom of the sea would need quite so much melanin in that environment. But again—mythical, so not a hill I’m willing to die on.
But I love history and books/movies based on it, so that IS important to me. It’s one thing for an author to write an historical fantasy and say right up front that that’s what it is. But to rewrite characters like Mary QoS, who was staunchly religious, to be sympathetic in her day and age, to a gay man is internally inconsistent. And YES, it is important to remember how much discrimination gay people faced, especially men. So of course they create the sympathetic characters to be accepting of them, whether or not that was the case. It’s as though liberal screenwriters, directors, et al. cannot bear to think that a sympathetic character could deviate in any way from their own viewpoints here in 2024 Hollywood.
I can appreciate the difficulty of telling an historical tale without viewing it through a modern lens. But to twist history to fit a modern political narrative is an offense to the truth.
Well, I disagree about mythical characters still. Mythology or fantasy doesn't mean absurd where 'everything goes'. It's still should be logical and internally plausible. For a former fiction writer it's important to me too. People won't believe in a fantasy which is totally absurd, it should still have its internal logic even if it stretches reality a bit.
Agreed with your second point. And I actually even never understood the urge to view history through modern lenses. For me it was always more interesting to understand how people thought back then even if I might not like it or agree with it myself, like with homophobia for example.
I hear your points re fantasy. It’s just less important to me personally. But I acknowledge that internal consistency is crucial to a well created fantasy.
Yeah, different things are more important for us. For me both mythology and history are important. If they wanted so much to make Black mythical characters, how about exploring rich African folklore? But no single Woketsrd ever done that, they prefer to mutilate our folklore instead, fucking Woke racists.
Agreed. And companies keep doing this, and losing money. They should be sued by their stockholders, who, by law have to produce profits for their shareholders. I will not watch any of the woke crap, and my son was brought up right, and he won't either. I would love to see a conservative company needs to produce a movie with a white Martin Luther King, or white Rosa Parks - and just watch the outrage...
Exactly, or white Nelson Mandela as I suggested.
Sorry I missed that, I tend to scan when I read... 😬
Oh, no problem, and MLK option is also great 😊
I will not watch woke bullshit. Anne Boleyn was WHITE. Not black!!!
Exactly. I ceased to watch new movies with VERY few exceptions since the end of 2019 when Woke agenda there went rampant.
The same. Fiction and movies should be plausible above all. If they aren't plausible, they aren't good. Even of its fantasy, it still can be logical and plausible.
We are being eliminated.
Exactly.
Sorry, but not reproducing has absolutely nothing to do with being written out of history.
Woke is Marxist at its core and seeks some nirvana where “ differences” are no longer a differentiator among humans so men can be women, blacks can be whites and people can even be effing flurries if they want to.
Yet their way of getting there, identity politics and tribalism, defeats their ideal state of one species.
The construct of the “browning” of the world by mass race immigration and promoting inter racial procreation as “cool” gets to the point where black males + white females = brown off spring as the norm and replicating those genes across populations
Marxists and globalist social architects hate whiteness and I had a Jewish friend tell me once that as the human race becomes more mongralized that then Gods chosen people will be the last man standing for domination
Interesting, I didn't think of interracial marriages with this regard. But still, those marriages are largely minority, so the Left are failing there hopefully.
I would submit that most interracial babies are not conceived in nuclear family structure. Black fathers that procreate with white women just as with black women don’t take care of the offspring but place the burden on the taxpayer
Well, it's somewhat reassuring overall but not great for the taxpayers.
I’m less bothered by interracial children than by children of any race increasingly and deliberately brought up by single mothers.
And it’s pretty offensive to imply that all black men—or even a majority of them—abandon their offspring. I know several black men who are outstanding husbands and fathers, including a single father raising two incredible daughters. Let’s elevate men like that as role models for the next generation.
Re-reading that, I realize that my two paragraphs appear to contradict one another. For single mothers, I mean teenagers who elect to keep their babies. I don’t really count teenage boys as men, or expect them to step up, get married and take on a family at 16. These days, I DO expect every mother of a teenage girl to get her on birth control. Take her in for a depo-provera shot or an IUD if you think she won’t consistently take a pill.
Very good points, agreed. Though as a man I lament gross irresponsibility of teenage boys too but teenage girls as future mothers have greater responsibility, agreed.
Welfare has enabled illegitimacy.
The thing is this: The Woke are engaging the "white to black" role reversals to make their point, yes, but they're also pushing their agenda far up our collective a$$. Yet there's hardly ANY pushback from conservatives. As always, they remain complacent and let this sh|t continue. I have noticed, though, a few conservative production companies coming out with their own non-Woke movies - Angel Studios is one, and Daily Wire I believe has done so as well. But this isn't really enough to stop the Woke 'white to black' role & history reversals. I don't really have any concrete answers except to boycott everything Woke. But I LOVE the idea of a White actor playing MLK or Nelson Mandela. Turn about is absolutely fair play.
Yeah, exactly, and Woketards wouldn't have a moral right to scream 'Racism!' then when they were engaging into this shit for a long while. Well, they still would ofc, but no one with eyes and a brain will take them seriously this time around, as people took them during BLM.
Why there's no meaningful conservative opposition to this shit I also don't fully understand. Before I thought it's because conservatives lack Big Money which the Left with their Hollywood and Disney and Netflix have but now when Elon Musk is Trump's right hand, money shouldn't be a problem. Cancel culture isn't such an issue now as it was four years ago too, then why?
Perhaps conservatives don't think it's that important and are more focused on opposing transing of kids and illegal immigration. Fair enough, but all the Woke agenda is tied though, and every part of it is harmful and promotes the same idea of first discrimination and then absurdities. First Woke movies brainwashed people, and then people began to accept actual Woke policies, so it's all tied and hence I believe it's important to counter Woke movies with their Blackwashing too.
Meaningful conservative opposition... That lies within the conservative values. In general, conservatives believe in among other freedoms, free speech. All too often we sit back and respect the rights of others, until it becomes too late. Possibly why we allowed the Quran in School. I think where we are late to the game, it's realizing that the other side doesn't give us the same considerations.
I have no statistics to back any of this up, it's just my own personal observation.
Well, I mostly agree with you. In their noble naivete conservatives assume that other side despite all their disagreements respect core American values like freedom and human rights, just like them. But the key point is they don't.
The Left would stop at nothing to destroy their opponents and push their agenda and certainly wouldn't consider conservative freedoms and rights ever.
Meaningful conservative opposition... That lies within the conservative values. In general, conservatives believe in among other freedoms, free speech. All too often we sit back and respect the rights of others, until it becomes too late. Possibly why we allowed the Quran in School. I think where we are late to the game, it's realizing that the other side doesn't give us the same considerations.
I have no statistics to back any of this up, it's just my own personal observation.
Remember, you are not allowed to have a kinky perm because that is 'cultural appropriation.' So is wearing African style clothing. "Do not say that All lives matter.' All of that is cultural appropriation.
But, by all means, turn white characters black, and call it history.
The hypocrisy and double standard are monstrous.
This is such hypocrisy when compared with their stance of calling out and not allowing “ cultural appropriation” . A few years ago we had a local theater company cancel several performances of a play because a trans character was played by a straight man and the woke crowd went nuts. But a white person played by a black is justified as just artistic license.
Their hypocrisy is sky high and double standard is glaring but they have zero self-awareness to even notice it. I just can't with these people.
The whole “Wakanda” (or should it be pronounced. “Wokanda?”) incident is almost hilarious. Some ignorant black folk have been citing the “reality” of Wakanda to “prove” that sub Saharan Africans have been on the cutting edge of technology!
So they took fantasy as an actual history? Oh my.
This is similar to the Bridgerton phenomenon, where people are under the delusion that Charlotte of Mecklenburg was black, based on one portrait and a Moorish ancestress 14 generations previous. It’s ludicrous.
And this ludicrous shit is being pushed down on us everywhere.
It seems really racist. Do the people making these decisions realise that?
Have they ever thought about just telling stories written by black people, I’m sure there are plenty of stories from Africa that could be made into interesting films?
Do they think black people don’t have any good stories?
It seems they do, or they don't care. It's not about representation of Black history. It's about mutilation of the white one.
White people are raised to be colorblind while POC are raised to hate the white man (colonizers!)
Sadly it's true, it's mostly POC who are buying Woke racist agenda.
If you are going to capitalize the word Black when referring to a subset of humans you should also capitalize the word White when referring to a different subset. It makes it seem like you've been captured by the Woke thought police without realizing it. A small point, I realize, but to some of us it keeps us on an even keel and only seems fair.
A very good point actually. Many of us do that automatically without realizing that we actually advance Woke agenda with it, so thanks.
Spot on my friend
Watching commercials you will notice the white male is always the “stupid” one.
The other reason that I watch old movies and lots of British mystery and drama shows produced prior to Woke, is the towns and characters are the "color" of what the makeup of society was in that particular place and time. With Woke TV you get Blacks being the boss or "brains" and Whites the underlings. To add insult to injury, this same ideology and DEI insanity will install Blacks into positions that they are often unable to succeed in. As a father whose daughter teaches math grades 9-12, she explains that they "pass" the unworthy by means of an exaggerated curve just to move them through the system. The obvious results can be seen in the people that can't manage a city let alone a Fortune 500 company. Make-believe and reality should never be mixed. Logic and reason applied it's advancement via Merit; no curve just a A-B-C-D-E standard grading system that was established many decades ago. Color isn't a factor at all. Just the facts, please.
Excellent piece!
White people desire a “sun-tanned” appearance; Black people see “white-like” features as good in Blacks (Vanessa Williams, Haley Berry, Kerry Washington, etc)
Many people want to be something they are not... I don’t see this as an afront to white culture anymore than straights who portrays homosexuals in movies or TV as an assault on the homosexual life.
Porgy and Bess was written as an all Black Operetta and it is good (IMO) but the Black market is much smaller than all the others combined. There is a huge advantage for Blacks to portray White characters:
- story is already written
- audience is familiar with the story
- its different than a standard portrayal
- capture a different viewership
- easier sell to the investors
I feel that its more about the money than anything else.
Well, I still disagree. Straight men do not look different from gay ones so it's more believable than seeing Blacks portraying whites. Also, how many bisexual men are there? No one knows. So those 'straight' actors who portray gay men might in truth be bisexual.
This is the main fault with stereotypical thinking - people see a man dates a woman and assume he's straight though he might be bisexual, or see him dating a man and assume he's gay though he might be bisexual too.
Also my article provides more serious reasons why is it dangerous, racist and destructive.
Your article was excellent and I actually agreed with much of it. The part I am grappling with is the coordination of the movement. As an aside, I was married to a gay woman and had no idea... married for more than 25 years... so “yes” its hard to tell the difference.
My conveyance was not concise and thats my error. The point I was attempting to express is that many people want to be something different and if what they wish to alter is immutable, that is when trouble takes hold.
Most movements begin with traits that can’t or are difficult to change... color of skin, male or female, the natural color of your hair, birth parents, et al. These movements grow backwards; first they start with a specific example and then apply that example to the immutable characteristics. Example: a choke hold is applied to a person of color and that person expires. That particular act gets associated with all Blacks (this doesn’t mean all Blacks agree with the association) being bullied, harassed, discriminated and so on. Its a post hoc fallacy to the highest level which makes it manufactured and not grassroots.
I agree with your premise, I just don’t know how the movement starts or who decides to start it. My lack of understanding doesn’t mean that I disagree with you but I also feel that there is a preexisting underlying angst of people wishing to be something different.
Maybe your wife wasn't gay but bisexual at least if she was able to live with you for so long?😉
Yeah I see where are you coming and agree but I believe those who started this movement - Woke racist Marxists - started it with nefarious purpose indeed, and I explained why in the article.
I agree with nefarious purpose but I just don’t understand how any movement starts, it has to have massive coordination. I am not denying this is happening, in fact I agree... I am bewildered how it works.
Keep the intriguing articles coming; I will be a paid Subscriber in a few days.
By the way, my ex and I never discussed bisexuality, but when I asked what she preferred male or female, she responded by saying she preferred to be with a dog (she had a little sawed off puppy).
I think different movements start differently - some from bottom to top and some from top to bottom.
Thanks again, I deeply appreciate it!
Hm, I hope your wife didn't mean to be with a dog sexually xD But overall I understand her - I prefer animals to people too now, they're much more loyal and much less troublesome!
He/she who frames the debate wins the debate. What this woke movement has created are the “ground rules”. What they (the movement) are promoting is the inclusion, the counter of inclusion is exclusion. When a person or group excludes anything, those individuals/groups appear to be bias and/or prejudice. Lines are drawn at the very beginning, discussions get conflated and what is ultimately argued are characteristics of the people debating and not the subject.
Look at George Floyd, he went from a person being detained by authorities to victim to being a poster boy for BLM. The ultimate goal was to use his death to promote civil disorder, defund the police, and vote for Democrats.
The entire episode went from something very specific (death while in custody) to a broad general topic(s) of pitting authoritative Whites, who are privileged racists, against the centuries old downtrodden Blacks.
Partial truths on all sides of this scenario but the dye was casted when it became White versus Black... everything else was a lead up to the argument that are grounded in immutable conditions (color of one’s skin).
There are deviations with the Whites and the Blacks... you have Whites that totally side with the plight of the Blacks and Blacks who are critical of constantly harping on the Whites. Listen to those exceptions and who sounds like the voice of reason?
You sound like the voice of reason ☺ That was very thoughtful comment and I agree with most what you said. But what's your overall point?
- many individuals want to be different from their current self... they are willing to do something different.
- these individuals are susceptible to propaganda and will minimize their due diligence regarding the facts.
- the weaker people have not seen themselves as a shaker or mover but want to be.
- those who want to be will embrace an idea that can provide them with a bump in status.
- when accepted they hang on to this new level with passion and ignore opposing viewpoints.
- then they are captured by groups along the lines of BLM.
- the groups provide an echo chamber while they themselves are an echo chamber for the group.
In short, the group is not grassroots, the group has an endgame that is not shared with the recruits and the recruits are happy within the group but can’t function outside of it. This is one of the major contributors to the alienating taking place in in nuclear families. Newly found “power” is the worst, its like handing an A-15 to an eight year old. There were multiple situations these past 4 years... COVID, Trump derangement, the Ukrainian war, the hatred for Russia, inflation... all them were in play and none of it is good.
* this is difficult for me to convey in text messages; conversing is much better as ideas and ways of expressing opinions is allowed to marinate off each other.
Ok, I think I got your point now and agree overall. You're very thoughtful and nice person.
Ironically, for me it's better to express my thoughts in writing, in conversation I might get a bit shy, clumsy, distracted... That's why I became a writer I suppose.
But nice conversing with you anyway!
Exactly, it was my initial point - it looks absurd and violates plausibility of the story, just if like kids were playing old people, giants - dwarves, and so on. But as I explained, they deliberately make it absurd to make us disbelieve our eyes.
And as you said, to make the younger generation, who rely on such media for their ideas about history, think that this is remotely plausible.
EXACTLY. I was looking forward to the movie about Mary Queen of Scots—till they inserted an Asian lady-in-waiting, which was so patently absurd that it vaulted me right out of the story. I switched it off and never went back. Same with Gentleman in Moscow, where his best childhood friend was…black? Because black people were so common in turn-of-the-20th-century Russia? And yes, I am aware of Pushkin. That doesn’t change the general demographics.
I have less of a problem with black elves or mermaids since they’re mythical anyway. But don’t make a historical drama and shoehorn in people who were not there.
I have watched Mary Queen of Scots too and yeah it was totally historically inaccurate and they made it worse by presenting it as a historical movie (not fiction!) which implies historical accuracy.
This being said I have a problem with Black Elves abd dryads too. They're not real but they're still a product of our culture, not African one. Moreover for example dryads as Nordic forest creatures would be even impossible in African deserts, jungles and Savannah - there's no environment for them even.
Coming back to Mary of Scotts, they featured gay drag character here and Mary was fully 'accepting' him despite he tried to steal her husband. Now, I am a gay guy but I am aware that back at that time society was pretty homophobic, and I don't want this homophobia to be erased - in the contrary, we must remember it so never to repeat. Those movies erase actual homophobia and make it seem that gays were never persecuted which isn't true.
Now, I'm willing to accept that raised in France which decriminalized homosexuality already Mary might indeed have been more tolerant and accepting towards gays. But still, to fully embrace in a truly modern Woke fashion a gay guy who tried to steal her husband? Gosh, as a queen she wouldn't have embraced even a woman who would have tried to do so!
P. S. Pushkin also was a mulatto, biracial, not Black, and yeah he was largely an exception.
I hear what you’re saying re the mythical characters. I will admit that when Disney cast a black actress as the little mermaid, I giggled at the thought that someone living at the bottom of the sea would need quite so much melanin in that environment. But again—mythical, so not a hill I’m willing to die on.
But I love history and books/movies based on it, so that IS important to me. It’s one thing for an author to write an historical fantasy and say right up front that that’s what it is. But to rewrite characters like Mary QoS, who was staunchly religious, to be sympathetic in her day and age, to a gay man is internally inconsistent. And YES, it is important to remember how much discrimination gay people faced, especially men. So of course they create the sympathetic characters to be accepting of them, whether or not that was the case. It’s as though liberal screenwriters, directors, et al. cannot bear to think that a sympathetic character could deviate in any way from their own viewpoints here in 2024 Hollywood.
I can appreciate the difficulty of telling an historical tale without viewing it through a modern lens. But to twist history to fit a modern political narrative is an offense to the truth.
Well, I disagree about mythical characters still. Mythology or fantasy doesn't mean absurd where 'everything goes'. It's still should be logical and internally plausible. For a former fiction writer it's important to me too. People won't believe in a fantasy which is totally absurd, it should still have its internal logic even if it stretches reality a bit.
Agreed with your second point. And I actually even never understood the urge to view history through modern lenses. For me it was always more interesting to understand how people thought back then even if I might not like it or agree with it myself, like with homophobia for example.
I hear your points re fantasy. It’s just less important to me personally. But I acknowledge that internal consistency is crucial to a well created fantasy.
Yeah, different things are more important for us. For me both mythology and history are important. If they wanted so much to make Black mythical characters, how about exploring rich African folklore? But no single Woketsrd ever done that, they prefer to mutilate our folklore instead, fucking Woke racists.