Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts

Friday, October 7, 2016

NEW YORK TIMES Subtly Warns Pro-Black Race War Film BIRTH OF A NATION Has Potential to Incite Violence Toward Whites

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about the movie "Birth of a Nation." This follows this post about the TV show "Designated Survivor." This follows this post about the "Mothers of the Movement." This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.


NY Times warns BIRTH OF A NATION walks fine line between inspiring black people and inciting black people to violence against blacks...NY Times warns BIRTH OF A NATION walks fine line between inspiring black people and inciting black people to violence against blacks...

NEW YORK TIMES Subtly Warns Pro-Black Race War Film BIRTH OF A NATION Has Potential to Incite Violence Toward Whites


Back in 1988, a movie called Mississippi Burning was released.
Why? The goal was obviously to induce white guilt in those white people who saw it and black rage in those black people who viewed the film.
Both worked.
A New York Times review of Mississippi Burning—a movie that the screenwriters admitted was mostly the work of fiction— wrote it “literally crackles with racial hate.”
Why is this important to note? Because a number of black people who saw the film acted on that racial hate.
This group of black people, enraged from seeing Mississippi Burning – remember, a work of fiction—  said “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?’ “`You all want to f*ck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him”, and   chased down 14-year-old Gregory Reddick (after counting to three, a macabre timer for racial revenge) and “beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.” [Wisconsin v. Mitchell (92-515), 508 U.S. 47 (1993).]
Why is this important to even bring up?
This is why.
Tricky Goal for ‘Birth of a Nation’: Inspire but Don’t Incite, by Brooks Barnes, New York Times, October 2, 2016. Emphases added.
turnerlivesThe coming film “The Birth of a Nation,” which recounts a violent 1831 slave rebellion and includes scenes that evoke present-day outrage over fatal police shootings of black men, has been marketed as an urgent call to action.
In publicity materials, Nate Parker, the film’s director, writer, producer and star, says audiences should leave theaters asking, “When injustice knocks at our own front door, are we going to counter it with everything we have?” The distributor of the historical drama, Fox Searchlight, has promoted it with provocative posters depicting Mr. Parker’s character with his head in a noose made from an American flag and with trailers that feature Andra Day’s stirring rhythm-and-blues song “Rise Up.”
But when “The Birth of a Nation” arrives in roughly 2,000 theaters on Friday, Fox Searchlight is hoping that a parallel and largely invisible marketing effort — one intended to contain and frame Mr. Parker’s message — will ease the film into communities already on edge. As the nation struggles to deal with the issue of race after a number of episodes in which unarmed black men have been killed by the police, prompting protests in cities across the country, the studio wants “The Birth of a Nation” to inspire but not incite.
Whether Fox Searchlight can have it both ways will depend on the effectiveness of a grass-roots campaign aimed at churches, schools and pockets of political influence.
As it has publicly dealt with new attention on a rape case from 1999 involving Mr. Parker, the studio has quietly hosted an unusually expansive series of private screenings of the film for groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches. Aja Brown, the mayor of Compton, Calif., will be a co-host of an advance screening at a local theater on Monday. Studio operatives have also distributed guides to roughly 80,000 churches that contain suggestions for weaving the film and its themes into sermons. Classroom study materials were made available to more than 30,000 teachers.
“We can’t control how the film is ultimately read, what actions people may take, but one message has been that there are very viable and practical steps,” said the Rev. Marshall Mitchell, a pastor and movie consultant who since April has been among those working to build interest in Mr. Parker’s film while also reducing its volatility. “Rise up by voting. Rise up to build affordable housing. Rise up in a constructive way.”
In conjunction with the film, Fox Searchlight helped organize a voter enrollment effort in multiplex lobbies. Actors from “The Birth of a Nation” also recorded a video to raise voting awareness, which has run in participating theaters. “This fall, we will all have the opportunity to put our differences aside and celebrate the rights that unite us as Americans,” says Colman Domingo, who plays a slave named Hark in the movie.
“The Birth of a Nation” recounts the true story of Nat Turner, a slave who gained a following as a preacher. But repugnant events — atrocities by slave owners, the gang rape of his wife by white men — turn Turner into the leader of a murderous rebellion. He hopes the killings will be the first shots in a war for equality and justice, but whites slay him and his followers as retribution.
The film is direct in its effort to connect America’s racist past to the present. In one jarring scene that echoes contemporary accounts of police shootings, slave hunters stop Turner’s innocent father on a road and try to kill him. Mr. Parker declined an interview request, but studio publicity materials quote him as explaining, “If you look at history — if you look at the history, say, of how Southern police departments developed out of slave patrols — then you can better analyze where we are now.”
Fox Searchlight, which also declined to comment, paid a hefty $17.5 million in January to acquire distribution rights to “The Birth of a Nation,” which takes its title from the 1915 D. W. Griffith silent movie, which is considered a landmark for its innovative filmmaking technique but is derided as racist for its stereotypical depiction of blacks and its sympathetic portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, the studio was confident it could turn the well-reviewed movie into a hit.
The subject matter of Mr. Parker’s film is timely and relevant, dovetailing with the Black Lives Matter movement. Mr. Parker, who spent seven years struggling to get “The Birth of a Nation” made, had a compelling story to tell. And there was a shortage of prestige-minded films with diverse casts. The shutout of black actors by Academy Awards voters (for a second year in a row) and subsequent #OscarsSoWhite outcry made that clear.
But the marketing plan grew complicated in a hurry.
Police shootings of black men — many of them captured on video — continued to set off protests around the country. Then, in July, a demonstration in Dallas turned violent when a gunman killed five police officers. He set out to kill as many white officers as possible, Texas officials said.
Fox Searchlight had conducted focus group research to see if “The Birth of a Nation” might be viewed as a call to aggression and concluded there was no risk. Even so, the studio leaned into its effort to position the film as a specific type of provocation — a peaceful one.
“Part of our work has been to distill that ‘rise up’ message down,” said Mr. Mitchell, who is the pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Jenkintown, Pa., and a founder of Wit PR, a firm that specializes in outreach to spiritually minded moviegoers.
Then, in late August, news reports brought renewed attention to a case in which Mr. Parker was accused and later acquitted of raping a fellow student while at Penn State. It was revealed that Mr. Parker’s accuser later committed suicide in 2012 at the age of 30.
That disclosure prompted a backlash against the filmmaker. Some called to boycott the film.
The movie’s awards prospects dimmed dramatically. On Sunday, “60 Minutes” dedicated part of a segment to the controversy, with an unapologetic Mr. Parker saying he was “falsely accused” and “vindicated.”
All of that means the financial prospects for “The Birth of a Nation” are now murky.
Some movie marketing experts say the question at this point, in fact, is not how the masses will receive the film but whether there will be any masses at all. Will women shun “The Birth of a Nation” because of the controversy about Mr. Parker’s past? Do black audiences want to see another movie with slavery at its center? Will the potential lack of awards season buzz depress ticket sales, particularly overseas?
So the New York Times has just published a story basically washing their hands of any racial hate the movie Birth of a Nation creates among blacks, and whatever racial violence the movie motivates against white people.
The United States of America is basically ceasing to exist as a nation before our eyes, and it would be foolish at this point for any white person to believe it can be salvaged.
In fact, it’s important to note our Federal Government, media, entertainment industry, academia, and private sector now view Nat Turner as the hero—and not the villain.
We’re all just potential Gregory Reddicks now.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Editorial: Donald's Outreach to Blacks

Editorial

Donald Trump is attempting an outreach to African-Americans by showing that not only have they gotten put in a worse economic situation over the last 7-1/2 years, but actually have gotten worse economically and socially since 1960, when they had a lower divorce rate than their White counterparts! African Americans did, of course, have situational problems before 1960, yet as MLK did say, they did strive to have an exceptional content to their character!

Unfortunately now, some Black "leaders" encourage lawlessness in a sense that their grandfathers would be repulsed by and the Straight Party Vote tendencies have prevented any solutions from being found.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-trump-is-on-to-something-blacks-have-lost-ground-in-obamas-economy

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Editorial: 50 Shades, Alabama, and...Secession?

Editorial


This week's most anticipated movie is 50 Shades of Grey. If you've read it, you know what it's about, but if you haven't it's based on a depraved BDSM book. Why this is being shown at all, but especially in the U.S. show how far we've fallen. Scary: The Decade’s Top 10 Best-Selling Books List & What It Says About America


In a similar vein, the U.S. state of Alabama is having homosexual "marriage" imposed on it. Approximately 70% of the state's residents oppose this "marriage" yet it is being imposed nevertheless. Alabama's legislatures should follow the example of the U.S. president  on immigration, and only enforce the laws they like and give gubernatorial and judicial executive orders opposing this court ruling. Immigration Restriction Is STILL The Answer To The “Emerging Democratic Majority”


OTOH, Secession might come again after all!

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Three overturns of the Royal Family!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Three Overturns of the Royal Family. This follows this post about parenting. This follows this post about Scotland. his follows this post about the Feast of Trumpets. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.


Three overturns





But couldn’t the throne have been transferred elsewhere for a long time before being transferred to the British Isles? The indirect answer from prophecy seems to be no.

In Ezekiel:21:26-27, God declared that Zedekiah was to "remove the diadem and take off the crown: This shall not be the same [a change or transfer was occurring]; exalt him that is low [the Zarhite ruler in Israel] and abase him that is high [Zedekiah of the line of Perez]. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, that is, the throne]; and it shall be no more [overturned] until HE come whose right it is; and I will give it HIM [Christ]" (KJV).
Notice that the final "overturned" was added in brackets for the sake of clarity. Some see this verse as a prophecy of the overthrow of the crown—that it would "be no more" (meaning no longer exist) until Christ came to claim it. Yet this cannot be the meaning of this prophecy or God would be breaking His unbreakable promise to David of an unbreakable dynasty. So the overturning must refer to removing the throne from one nation and raising it up in another. And the mentioning of overturn three times would certainly seem to be saying that such overturning would occur three times—that three times the throne would be transferred to another nation and that it wouldn’t be transferred again until Jesus Christ’s coming in power and glory to take it over.
When was the last time another country’s monarchy was transplanted into the throne’s present location in England? The answer is 1603, when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of Great Britain (the one who commissioned the King James Bible). This is obviously the last overturn to have taken place. Because of it, today’s British monarchs are of Scottish royal descent.
Prior to that, was another country’s throne ever transplanted into Scotland? Yes. The throne of the Scoti (as the Irish were anciently called) was moved from Ireland into southwest Scotland in the late fifth century—their kingdom of Dalriada in that area, centered at Iona (a name perhaps related to Ionia of Greece), eventually growing to envelop what is now Scotland. This was clearly the previous overturn—which is why Scotland’s monarchy, which became Britain’s monarchy, was actually Irish.
Now since these were the last two overturns of three, there can only have been one other—the first. And that first overturn had to have been the transfer of the throne from Judah. Thus it should be clear that this transfer must have been from Judah to Ireland. Had the throne been transferred from Judah to some other country before later being reestablished in Ireland, that would add a fourth overturn—when Scripture appears to allow for only three. By simple deduction, the three overturns must have been: 1) Judah to Ireland; 2) Ireland to Scotland; 3) Scotland to England.
It should be mentioned, though, that in the first overturn it is possible that the daughter of Zedekiah married into the Milesian Zerah line in Spain or elsewhere around the time it was in the process of assuming control over Ireland. This would not be adding another overturn from Spain to Ireland, as it would all be part of the same overturn. Whether or not this happened, however, is dependent on exactly when the Milesians from Spain took over Ireland, which is not entirely clear. They may have already become established in Ireland before Jeremiah’s journey—though perhaps still maintaining control over part of Spain when he arrived. Again, however, it is possible that Zedekiah’s daughter and Jeremiah actually accompanied the Milesians in their invasion of Ireland from Spain.


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Help Your U.S. Representative Tell Boehner He/She OPPOSES AMNESTY


A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about action to oppose John Boehner's postelection amnesty attempt. This follows this post about what to do with the government now!  This follows this post about political violence.  This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read a very interesting book HERE!



Help Your U.S. Representative Tell Boehner He/She OPPOSES AMNESTY






Your current  U.S. Representative is just back at the Capitol today and considering whether to join or block Speaker Boehner in moving toward a mass amnesty -- YOUR FAX TODAY IS CRUCIAL





Regardless of your own party affiliation, I need your help with your  Rep. who has a crucial role to play this week in stopping the Republican leadership from promising to move an amnesty next year.



Help Your U.S. Representative Tell Boehner He/She OPPOSES AMNESTY



Speaker Boehner created a media frenzy last week by saying he was open to moving a mass amnesty in order to supposedly gain more Hispanic votes in the future.



Several of his House Republicans immediately said Boehner was wrong to say anything because he hasn't even talked with his Members yet.



Well, everybody is back today after a month of campaigning, and Boehner will hear this week whether the Republican House majority wants to remain the steadfast bulwark it has been for a decade against rewarding millions of immigration lawbreakers with jobs and citizenship.



Don't let your Representative think there is any reason to switch to a pro-amnesty position now.



View & Send Free Fax



or click https://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet




(When you click on the red button, you will see more background information if you need it. And you can keep clicking for many different text options for your fax. As always, you can modify and add to your message as much as you want. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO GET A FAX INTO THAT CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE SO IT CAN BE COUNTED.)



Chances are that your Rep. has always stood against amnesties to reward immigration lawbreaking. However, many previous anti-amnesty stalwarts are vulnerable at the moment because of the chorus of false claims that the elections last week were a mandate for an amnesty if Republicans ever hope to have power again.



Our NumbersUSA Hill Team is saying this morning that our closest Republican allies in Congress have every intention of standing firm, but they need your help in convincing other Republicans that they have no reason to be stampeded by an incredibly biased news media into violating their principles on amnesty.



If you bolster your Representative's confidence, that can help reassure Speaker Boehner and other GOP leaders that they don't need to make any concessions at this moment. Let's slow everything down and give people time to think.



Nearly all  Representatives were re-elected from districts that strongly oppose amnesty. Only a handful of those districts pose any threat to an incumbent based on his/her immigration positions.



Your only real influence over the powerful Speaker Boehner is through your own Representative. Thanks for sending this fax, as you have sent others the last few months.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Secession in the Air

This is an interesting post from Pat Buchanan of http://www.vdare.com/ about the secession movement that is happening somewhat in conjuction with the Tea Party movement. Formore Posts like this click here.

Secession in the Air
By Patrick J. Buchanan
No, it is not 1860 again.
But with all the talk of the 10th amendment, nullification and interposition, states rights and secession—following Gov. Rick Perry’s misstatement that Texas, on entering the Union in 1845, reserved in its constitution a right to secede—one might think so.
Chalk up another one for those Tea Party activists who exploded in cheers when Sister Sarah brought up the dread word in endorsing Rick Perry in the primary.
Looking back in American history, however, these ideas, these sentiments, decried as insane inside the Beltway, were once as American as “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere.”
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical," wrote Jefferson to Madison from Paris in January 1787, about Revolutionary War Captain Daniel Shays’s anti-tax rebellion in Massachusetts.
In the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, both of these founding fathers sanctioned the idea that states could interpose their own sovereignty and nullify acts of Congress. Both were enraged by the Alien and Sedition Acts of Adams and the Federalists, written into law to combat sedition during the undeclared naval war with France.
On taking office, President Jefferson declared the acts unconstitutional, refused to prosecute those charged, and freed the imprisoned writers.
In 1814, Timothy Pickering, another veteran of the Revolution and Secretary of State to both Washington and Adams, was a force behind the Hartford Convention that argued for New England’s secession and reuniting with Great Britain. Massachusetts opposed Madison’s War of 1812 that had caused the British blockade that destroyed their trade and prosperity.
The war’s end and Jackson’s victory at New Orleans, however, aborted the Hartford movement and finished off the Federalists forever.
In 1832, it was Vice President John Calhoun who inspired South Carolina to vote to nullify the Tariff of Abomination that was killing the cotton-exporting South and enriching Northern manufacturers. To the chagrin of Madison, Calhoun invoked his and Jefferson’s Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in defense of Carolinian defiance.
In 1845, it was Massachusetts again. Ex-President John Quincy Adams declared that admission of Texas to the Union as a slave state might constitute grounds for secession and civil war.
With Lincoln’s election in 1860 and Republicans, the Northern party, assuming power, South Carolina, Georgia and the Gulf states seceded. But not until after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln called for volunteers to march South and crush the rebellion, did Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas secede, rather than remain passive or participate in a war on their kinfolk.
Unlike the issues of yesteryear that tore the Union asunder, Tea Party issues are not sectional but national. Yet, they are rooted in a similar set of beliefs—that the federal government no longer serves their interests, but the interests of economic and political forces that sustain the party in power.
In 1860, the South saw power passing indefinitely to a new regime, a Republican Party that represented high tariff industrialists, immigrant-backed big city machines, and New England radicals and abolitionists who despised the agrarian South and celebrated the raid on Harpers Ferry by the terrorist John Brown who had sought to incite a slave uprising, such as had occurred in Santo Domingo.
What called the Tea Party into existence?
Some are angry over unchecked immigration and the failure to control our borders and send the illegals back. Some are angry over the loss of manufacturing jobs. Some are angry over winless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some are angry over ethnic preferences they see as favoring minorities over them.
What they agree upon, however, is that they have been treading water for a decade, working harder and harder with little or no improvement in their family standard of living. They see the government as taking more of their income in taxes, seeking more control over their institutions, creating entitlements for others not them, plunging the nation into unpayable debt, inviting inflation or a default that can wipe out what they have saved.
And there is nothing they can do about it, for they are politically powerless. By their gatherings, numbers, mockery of elites and militancy, however, they get a sense of the power that they do not have.
Their repeated reappearance on the national stage, in new incarnations, should be a fire bell in the night to the establishment of both parties. For it testifies to their belief and that of millions more that the state they are coming to detest is at war with the country that they still love.
The secession taking place in America is a secession of the heart—of people who have come to believe the government is them, and not us.
Obama’s problem, like the Bushes’ in 1992 and 2008, is that one thing these folks are really good at is throwing big people out of power.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.