Frodi Midjord of Guide to Culture Reviews “A Time to Kill”: “How Reality Is Turned Upside-Down in the Most Incredible Propaganda Film in Hollywood History

Review of “A Time to Kill”: Hollywood Propaganda from 1996.



2 replies
  1. Servenet
    Servenet says:

    Just 7 minutes in and I’ll just go ahead and comment peremptorally as in my 69th year I’ve seen this spitting-and-shitting-on-whitey from my earliest exposure to the American “culture” to the present. I presume a majority of the paying movie absorbers were whites and they batted not an eye at their collective battering at the hands of jews, negroes, browns of all stripes (so to speak) and their fellow whites – the kind that hate the other half of their racial kin and imagine they by this buy their ticket to heaven with the righteousness they acquire by such a disposition. The basic take-away is that whites generally at that time (and I really understood this even at a quite early age) deceived themselves thinking they could afford all the contempt, the enmity, the seething resentment that was part-and-parcel of American culture at that time. They held, up until the mid-60’s complete political, social, and cultural hegemony, racially, and imagined they could/would always do so no matter the abuse. Well…they clearly couldn’t. All the illusions have been washed away certainly since the end of the Obama presidency, worsening with Trump and any of the merest subtlties abandoned with the advent of the dirty black summer of ’20. The “jig” was up and they (we) are staring into the existential abyss…for real. Has the point of no return been passed? I can only conclude…it certainly looks that way. Whites haven’t moved a “muscle” to manage the merest push-back. Utterly heart-breaking. Especially for us who have grandchildren. And I have many.

  2. SimpleMale
    SimpleMale says:

    Hello, I was wondering if the moderator can kindly let me know why my comments were not approved in the following post:

    I actually did the best I could to post what I thought were scientific comments. I was very respectful and altruistic in my post. If you can just kindly let me know if for various reasons, I am not welcomed to post here, I would consider it an act of kindness. This way, I can respect your wishes and stop posting here, and just post on your articles that are re-posted at Unz Review. The following is what I had posted at the above link, which was not approved:

    Prof. MacDonald mentioned that when Europeans are told they will become a minority, they say that this is a bad thing, which is evidence that Ethnocentrism still exists in Europeans. But, are they saying that it’s a bad thing because they are concerned that their fellow Europeans living on the next street, or next city, or next state, or in other nations will be harmed, or are they saying it’s a bad thing because they are concerned that they personally, or their nuclear family unit would be harmed? Would this issue not be key in determining if their concern is the result of sincere Group Selected Altruism modulated by Ethnocentrism, or whether their concern in just selfish, aka Individual Selection/Nuclear Family Unit Selection? Prof. MacDonald has in the past mentioned that when a neighborhood becomes diverse and detrimental, European individuals/families just leave for a better neighborhood, and then they are perfectly fine again, thus no concern about other Europeans – only themselves.

    Also, when liberal Europeans call Eurocentrists “evil,” do they sincerely mean it? My understanding is that Liberal Europeans are much more Individually Selected than Conservative Europeans, so they don’t actually have innate altruistic sentiments for anyone but themselves as individuals. So, would it then not be the case that they are only saying what they understand is the correct thing to say to enhance their careers, social status, opportunities for coitus, and overall resource status? It’s as if they know that the people in charge want certain things to be said and done, and if they do as such, they will enhance their personal resources. Thus, it’s not sincere altruism. This is anecdotal, but I personally have never met an actual innately altruistic Liberal European. The ones that interact with me only do so if it benefits them, and their behaviors towards others are opportunistic. On the other hand, the few times I’ve met what appeared to be sincere selfless Europeans, they were stubbornly Conservative and Christian. They are strict with their moral views, yet still kind, forgiving, and willing to harm themselves to help others. I always have to curtail their generosity towards me, since I don’t like to exploit other people’s sincere innate altruism.

    Prof. MacDonald also mentioned that there is a lot of talk (in various media only, as opposed to typical Europeans?) about different parts of America breaking away and forming their own nations. But, this would require war, since the Ashkenazim will not allow it to happen peacefully or democratically. Do typical Europeans still have the genetics to sacrifice everything and endure the extreme tortures of civil wars? If not, then this is all just talk.

    How can it makes sense for an Ashkenazi to intermarry, yet still be considered Group Selected and ethnocentric? If they claim to identify as Ashkenazi, then maybe they personally understand that they are genetically/biologically Ashkenazi and thus may face anti-Ashkenazi hostilities, and for this reason they may support groups like the ADL, but how can they be said to be innately Group Selected and Ethnocentric? The fact that they intermarried clearly would show they don’t have innate desires to perpetuate their race. So, their appearance of ethnocentrism may just be opportunistic, such as earning high incomes doing skilled jobs at Ashkenazi organizations, making money via ethnic networking, and due to a reasoned out belief that their own personal safety requires that they promote/fund pro-Ashkenazi projects/entities.

Comments are closed.