These last few weeks I’ve been traveling around the country visiting various family members. That’s the main reason I haven’t been posting. But last night I watched the movie “Les Miserables” with my daughter. I think the movie deserves a brief review on this blog even though it’s a few years old.
The first thing that got my attention was the Universal Studios introductory graphic depicting the Earth at night. Compare it to an actual photo of Earth at night. Did they remove some lights from Europe and place them in the otherwise almost completely dark Africa? If so, why? My daughter thinks it was only to make the image more appealing. I told her that Hollywood doesn’t deserve any benefit of a doubt; their intention was probably to make Africa look more civilized, even from space.
Along the same lines, even though the setting was in early 19th century France, the producers thought it necessary to include black faces among the miserable prisoners in the beginning scene, and among the revolutionaries toward the end. Granted, blacks were not unknown in Europe at the time, but must they inject their diversity mania even into a historically based epic such as this?
Les Miserables promotes some dangerous ideas. The underlying theme is that anybody can be redeemed from a life of crime and become a saint. It implies that we must not be too harsh with criminals, rather we should treat them rather than punish them. It uses the priest to show us that if only we drown criminals with loving kindness, they’ll turn a new leaf and become assets to our society. Sometimes this turns out to be true, but many lives have been lost or ruined because people failed to recognize a sociopath. There’s a time for kindness and healing and there’s a time for severe punishment and caution. Les Miserables focuses only on the former. A society that coddles its criminals will end up being swallowed up by them.
As for the movie’s notion that love at first sight will lead to a lasting life of marital bliss, we can only hope few take it seriously. I suppose it’s alright in the context of a romantic tale… maybe I’m being too analytical here.
Overall I thought it was wonderfully made and I’ll give it credit for breaking with some of Hollywood’s more annoying habits. It portrays Christians in a positive light. Though it’s debatable whether Christianity has been good, overall, for Western civilization, it’s refreshing to see it not being demonized on screen. The acting was superb, but I guess that goes without saying.
Bookmarks
- 4racism.org
- Alternative Hypothesis
- American Renaissance
- Amerika.org
- Black Pigeon Speaks
- CanSpeccy
- Countenance
- Counter Currents
- Dan from Squirrel Hill
- Diversity Chronicle
- Europa Unitas
- fleuchtling (refugees)
- Government and Corporate Anti-White Discrimination
- Hail to You
- HBD Chick
- Human stupidity
- It's Okay to be White
- John Derbyshire
- La Griffe du Lion
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Luke Ford
- Madspace
- Muunyayo
- Nimshal
- Nodhimmitude
- Occidental Dissent
- Reluctant Apostate
- Sincerity
- Soviet Men
- Steve Sailer's blog
- Taki's Magazine
- The Atheist Jew
- The Last Ditch
- The Mad Jewess
- The National Conservative
- The Politically Incorrect Australian
- The slitty eye
- The Unz Review (Steve Sailer)
- Those who can see
- Thuletide
- Utter Contempt
- VDare
Buy Your Coffee From These Patriots
What’s your take on this?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/what-makes-a-jewish-mother/?src=me&ref=general
Since somewhat relevant to this topic I’m reposting a comment here;
You:
“I’m happy with America being a predominantly Christian country”
Me:
The US is no longer a Protestant majority country.
The fastest growing religion here is Buddhism.
The fastest growing “belief demographic” is actually non-belief.
This category includes;
1.atheists
2.agnostics
3.the spiritual but not religious (there is some sort of belief in a higher power there but it is not tied to any tradition or practice)
4. and those that DO have a practice but do not affiliate themselves formally with any organized religion
Low information undertow on Twitter during the Oscars called the title of this movie…wait for it…
“Less Miserable.”
JAY, maybe you could explain your reaction to the ad wherein just 1 black person was placed amongst 7 whites?
“The ad is ostensibly about Smallpox, but the powers that be used it to piggyback their own virus: The “negro-is-holier-than-thou” virus.”…..
How is that “negro holier than thou” propaganda?
Other commenters said they were sick of black over-representation but how is 1 black amongst 7 whites “over” representation?
Another commenter said he/she stopped watching TV because of “blacks over-represented and ‘acting white’ “.
Other than BET and TV1, there are no where near the amount of Black people on shows and in movies as there are whites, so where’s the “over-representation”?
Plus what is “acting white” exactly?
From that thread it appears any representation of a Black person at all is interpreted by the crowd here as “over”.
Why is that?
On the other hand you get some Black people who claim they are not represented in media enough.
Going by what I see, media representation is becoming proportionate to population demographics, so I don’t see what beef you or those Black people have.
Please explain.
Mostly the “over-representation” is a matter of quality rather than quantity. It seems that in most TV shows, if a black is represented, he shall inevitably be portrayed as the most moral and intelligent character on the show. This is, frankly, in stark contrast to reality.
Similarly, the media tends to over-represent whites in less flattering roles. To watch “Law and Order”, or any of its spin-offs especially, one would get the impression that most crime in New York City is committed by middle-class white men, while in reality most crime in NYC is committed by blacks and Hispanics.
We obviously watch different programming. One of the complaints of Black people is that they are portrayed as criminals and other undesirable characters. There are PLENTY of portrayals like them of that in media.
And the commenters here seem to be totally comfortable with that, despite the fact that it gives Black kids growing up an image of themselves that is not just “unflattering” but tends to normalize that sort of behavior in their minds, which is one of the major points expressed by Black adults, and I agree with them.
I mean a commenter even said he’s sick of seeing Black people “acting white” on TV, which we can assume is acting desirable/normal/healthy/functional, considering that commenters other comments.
I’m also still waiting for JAY to address the ad he said, “… is ostensibly about Smallpox, but the powers that be used it to piggyback their own virus: The “negro-is-holier-than-thou” virus.”
?!?!?!
Re: new happy America,
As I mentioned, I’ve been traveling. The last few days my internet access has been sporadic.
As for your question, I’m a bit bewildered that I must spell it out for you. The single black person in question just happens to be featured in the center, and the tallest of the bunch. It gives the distinct impression that he’s the alpha male – whom white women should fawn over.
I’ll write more about this later; I’m about to get on a plane…
“The single black person in question just happens to be featured in the center, and the tallest of the bunch. It gives the distinct impression that he’s the alpha male – whom white women should fawn over.”
What?! Oh man, you’ve been reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many Manosphere blogs. Its “colored” your mind, man.
And its ok that you can’t get back to me right away. In fact, the more you stay off line, the better it is for you and your mind. Let it decompress so you can start to see clearly again.
“The underlying theme is that anybody can be redeemed from a life of crime and become a saint. It implies that we must not be too harsh with criminals, rather we should treat them rather than punish them. It uses the priest to show us that if only we drown criminals with loving kindness, they’ll turn a new leaf and become assets to our society.”
Many leftists (including, sadly, some leftist Christians) use the “Jesus hung out with prostitutes and other lowlifes” line to try to increase tolerance of degeneracy. Nevermind that Jesus told these people to “go and sin no more,” and offered them redemption––not tolerance! If He was really ok with criminality and degeneracy, why would criminals/degenerates need to be redeemed from it?
A few people have described leftism as a Christian heresy. I find it easier to think of it as a masochistic version of “The White Man’s Burden,” although that can also be seen as a heresy.
The problem in my country is that ordinary activity is considered criminal and thus our jails and prisons are filled with non-violent “offenders” and we have more jails and prisons than the entire Europe combined, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have more people locked up than the entire world combined.
At least we can agree on that.
JAY,
“A New, Happy America” and “coward” strike me as trolls and possibly the same person.
“coward” was previously banned from robert lindsay’s blog but has since ingratiated himself again and posts incessantly. He claims to be a fifteen year old mulatto, but a cursory look at his posts shows that to be unlikely.
Could be. Funny how people like that latch onto random blogs and don’t let go, kind of like a barnacle.
Uh, ok. Your idea of “troll” constitutes what now?
Asking questions?