Hello, moviegoers! Since my reputation is at an all time low and I cannot ruin it any
further, I have decided to post a review of the naziest of the naziest films. A film
more Nazi than Triumph of the Will. A fill so Nazi, that it was Nazi before Nazi was a
thing.

That's right: I am talking about The Birth of a Nation, the most explosive blockbuster
of the silent film era.

The Birth of a Nation is an epic about the American Civil War, which follows the
events from the point of view of a Southern family (the Camerons) and a Northern
family (the Stonemans). It is divided in two parts.

The first one is a by the book war drama. We can see the friendship within people in
the North and the South stretched by the war, Historical battles, and the eventual
capitulation by General Lee and Lincoln's demise in the hands of Booth. It would be
more impactful if we hadn't seen this a hundred times already, but hey, when this film
was released, it was groundbreaking.

The best thing the first part has to offer is paving the way for the second part,
which for me, is where the actual juice of this film resides.

The second segment deals with the reconstruction of the South after being crushed.
This recoustruction, according to the film, is burdened by radical politicians who
want to give them niggars equal rights to whites. To this effect, radicals rig elections, institute black judges and black juries to drive cases involving whites,
and use fear to keep Southern whites under control. It is in this climate that a
second rebellion shakes the South, as the townfolks create a new weapon to bring back
justice and end the tyranny of the blacks: the Ku Klux Klan!

Wait, throw no tomato at me until I am finished with the review, please.

As you can see, The Birth of a Nation does not attempt to conceal in the least its
opinion regarding inter-racial marriage, equal rights and universal voting. The very
first intertitle just after the credits and the plackard that reads that the film is
not aimed at creating controversy reads "The seed of disunion was planted when the
first Negro reached America". Seriously, next time a member of the Woke Brigade tells
you that a book is not inclusive because it lacks Queer characters, show him this
film. His eyes will pop out of his sockets.

Most amusing is that, when you ignore the blatant racism that soaks every inch of this
film, the movie is actually quite good, because it touches subjects that are somehow
actual. Particularly, you can see politicians playing the population and using thugs
to impose their law, to the point that normal people is forced to organize outside of
the law if they want any resemblance of justice. This movie uses Negroes as the unwitting enforcers of the evil politicians, but the script could be adapted to nearly
any region of the world were there is political violence and State Terrorism.

As many films of this era, The Birth of a Nation suffers from issues with its pacing.
Sometimes, Griffin lets the scenes roll for a tad longer after the point he wanted to
transmit had been made. At other times, impotant details are delivered a bit too
quickly.

This is the first attempt at creating an Epic that I know to have achieved a reasonable degree of artistical success. Some of the big battles actually look big.
Other battles are made in such a way that it takes some effort to learn what the heck
is going on. Certainly, Epic battles and special effects were a selling point for this
film back in the day, but that is not where its main strengths reside, in my opinion.

Again, as with many films from this era, the strength resides in the actors, photography and characterization. Heroes look heroic, villians look villianous. If you
pay attention you can see a lot of background details happening behind the main action
in each take. For example, the main characters might be talking in a field hospital,
but if you peek to the background, you will see some secondary drama happening with a
no-name patient.

The Birth of a Nation is definitively one every movie buff must watch if he ever wants
to be taken seriously. It is not for everybody, and the sort of people who places
other people in Twit lists just because they say stuff they don't want to hear will
have their brain torn asunder by a nazism overdose. People who can look past the KKK
propaganda might extract a lot of value out of this film.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Hello Arelor!

** On Tuesday 18.10.22 - 17:46, Arelor wrote to All:

[...] nazism overdose. People who can look past the KKK
propaganda might extract a lot of value out of this film.

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally appropriated
the Spanish capirote hood."



--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Ogg to Arelor on Tue Oct 18 2022 10:23 pm

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally appropriated
the Spanish capirote hood."

Yeah. Now tourists in Spain will expect Semana Santa's penitents to start pursuing
blacks and burn crosses.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Ogg to Arelor on Tue Oct 18 2022 10:23 pm

Hello Arelor!

** On Tuesday 18.10.22 - 17:46, Arelor wrote to All:

[...] nazism overdose. People who can look past the KKK
propaganda might extract a lot of value out of this film.

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally appropriated
the Spanish capirote hood."

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to be ghosts of fallen confederate heros or some shit

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

not aimed at creating controversy reads "The seed of disunion was planted when
he
first Negro reached America". Seriously, next time a member of the Woke Brigad

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.


* SLMR 2.1a * Patriotism is always the last refuge for the scoundrel.

---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:46 am

not aimed at creating controversy reads "The seed of disunion was planted when
he
first Negro reached America". Seriously, next time a member of the Woke Brigad

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

* SLMR 2.1a * Patriotism is always the last refuge for the scoundrel.

---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I think that is not the angle Griffin was pursuing with this movie.

Seriously, when the movie was accused of being racist and biased as fuck, his defense
was: "but this film is neutral. We cast Lincoln in a good light and there are two good
niggas".

Suuuure, Griffin. That argument is gonna fly... XD

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Hello MRO!

** On Wednesday 19.10.22 - 05:11, MRO wrote to Ogg:

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally
appropriated the Spanish capirote hood."

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to
be ghosts of fallen confederate heros or some shit

Wouldn't know. But makes for a good story if not true.

--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Ogg on Wed Oct 19 2022 05:11 am

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Ogg to Arelor on Tue Oct 18 2022 10:23 pm

Hello Arelor!

** On Tuesday 18.10.22 - 17:46, Arelor wrote to All:

[...] nazism overdose. People who can look past the KKK
propaganda might extract a lot of value out of this film.

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally appropriated
the Spanish capirote hood."

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to be ghosts of fall

I thought they wore masks to conceal their indentities and look inimidating. Who wants to be identified while lynching and burning down churches and
houses? If a suspect is picked up, he can deny it unless he had features a mask couldn't conceal, plus he could claim he never seen his fellow
clansman's faces.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:46 am

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons.
Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:09 pm

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to be ghosts of fall

I thought they wore masks to conceal their indentities and look inimidating. Who wants to be identified while lynching and burning down churches and houses? If a suspect is picked up, he can deny it unless he had features a mask couldn't conceal, plus he could claim he never seen his fellow clansman's faces.

yeah that is why they wore it.

here's some stuff on the ghost thing

https://thereconstructionera.com/were-the-ku-klux-ghosts-of-confederate-soldiers-mississippi-1868/

POSTED INKU KLUX KLAN, WHITE SUPREMACY, WHITE SUPREMACY APOLOGETICS, WHITE TERROR
Were the Ku Klux Ghosts of Confederate Soldiers? Mississippi 1868
AUTHOR:PATRICK YOUNG PUBLISHED DATE:NOVEMBER 20, 2019 2 COMMENTSON WERE THE KU KLUX GHOSTS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS? MISSISSIPPI 1868

This article announces the arrival of the KKK in Grenada, Miss. through the mockery of a black preacher. In the article "Uncle Ike" (older African American men were often called "Uncle" by whites), describes the Klansmen as akin to the ghosts of Confederate soldiers. Klansmen often pretended to be the ghosts of dead Confederates, claiming that "superstitious negroes" feared them as ghostly apparitions. Of course, it is more likely that they were feared because they were armed white supremacists with homicidal proclivities and military training in the Confederate armies.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to l
ve, they had valid reasons.
Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

You are correct, it certainly was not, but it is the one that got a lot of attention and stirred emotions and sentiments much more than any other.


* SLMR 2.1a * Dragon riders make good first impressions.

---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons. Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

Slavery was the root cause. The "declarations of secession" danced around the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over the course of 150 years, organizations like "The United Daughters of the Confederacy" pushed hard to re-write and re-define the Civil War.

I've lived in Wisconsin my whole life, and I remember our sections on The Civil War in history classes, most confederate generals were made out to be heroes. The books talked about how great these men were. Union generals were often just footnotes. Now, some of that is for good reason, as Lincoln went through A LOT of Generals-in-Chief before finally landing on Grant in 1864.

Sherman was champing at the bit, Grant sent him south to burn everything while he tied Lee up in Virginia.

"Gettysburg" is one of my favorite films, and it HEAVILY favors the confederate story. Even after Lee orders thousands of men to their deaths, he gets to be the sympathetic hero, by apologizing to returning soldiers and saying "it's all my fault". This is apocryphal. No one has ever been able to corroborate it. Lee never published any memoirs.

The saying goes "History is written by the victors" but in this case, that's not quite accurate. Many children's history textbooks are written to conform to southern states rules, and a lot of things slip in there that wind up being taught in schools all throughout the country. The narrative became that the Civil War was over "states rights" and, while techinically true, the "rights" the south attempted to secede over, was due to the inevitable collapse of their economic system which was based on owning other human beings.

DaiTengu

... Civil servants are neither civil nor servile.

---
■ Synchronet ■ War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: DaiTengu to MRO on Fri Oct 21 2022 11:40 am

If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons. Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

Slavery was the root cause. The "declarations of secession" danced around the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over

it was one of the causes, but not the root cause.
like everything, it was about money and the lack of consideration and protection these states were getting. for example, they had a huge problem with bandits and the govt wouldn't lift a finger to help.

the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over the course of 150 years, organizations like "The United Daughters of the

they didnt really feel like they were on the wrong side of history. slavery and other things like indentured servatude were just the way they did things.

I've lived in Wisconsin my whole life, and I remember our sections on The Civil War in history classes, most confederate generals were made out to be heroes. The books talked about how great these men were. Union generals were often just footnotes. Now, some of that is for good reason, as Lincoln went through A LOT of Generals-in-Chief before finally landing on Grant in 1864.

i'm a big fan of history and i have about 3 years of tech college history courses that i took after highschool. never have i seen a book in public school or anywhere else that glorified confederate generals as heros.

Confeds had some great battles, real interesting ones, but never did i see them portrayed as anything other than total losers in the wrong.

back then none of these people were good. Most of them weren't really champions against slavery. Whitey always has a motive and it's power and money.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to All on Tue Oct 18 2022 05:46 pm

Hello, moviegoers! Since my reputation is at an all time low and I cannot ruin it any further, I have decided to post a review of the naziest of the naziest films. A film more Nazi than Triumph of the Will. A fill so Nazi, that it was Nazi before Nazi was a thing.

Brave of you. Bravo. I've only seen short snippets of this movie (all I could stand), but I suppose I may give it a go again some day. Thanks for doing this.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #23:
Karl: I reckon I'm gonna have to get used to looking at pretty people.
Norco, CA WX: 61.1°F, 75.0% humidity, 2 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Digital Man to Arelor on Sat Oct 22 2022 08:01 pm

Hello, moviegoers! Since my reputation is at an all time low and I cannot ruin it any further, I have decided to post a review of the naziest of the
naziest films. A film more Nazi than Triumph of the Will. A fill so Nazi, that it was Nazi before Nazi was a thing.

Brave of you. Bravo. I've only seen short snippets of this movie (all I could stand

Actually, the first half of the film is moderate as far as racism goes. It is completely partisan and biased, and certainly has segments that seem to suggest that
"them niggas'" are happy when submitting to the will of their Masters, but it is
nothing compared to the horrors to be found on the second part.

The second part is outright cospiranoic lunacy about politicians using black people to
destroy the South.

I consider the second part to be on par with the woke propaganda we are getting with
films such as Mrs. Sloanne. It just happens to be on the other side of the spectrum.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to Digital Man on Sun Oct 23 2022 04:39 pm

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Digital Man to Arelor on Sat Oct 22 2022 08:01 pm

Hello, moviegoers! Since my reputation is at an all time low and I cannot ruin it any further, I have decided to post a review of the naziest of the naziest films. A film more Nazi than Triumph of the Will. A fill so Nazi,
that it was Nazi before Nazi was a thing.

Brave of you. Bravo. I've only seen short snippets of this movie (all I could stand

Actually, the first half of the film is moderate as far as racism goes. It is completely partisan and biased, and certainly has segments that seem to suggest that "them niggas'" are happy when submitting to the will of their Masters, but it is nothing compared to the horrors to be found on the second part.

I'm pretty sure I've only seen snippets from the second half.

The second part is outright cospiranoic lunacy about politicians using black people to destroy the South.

I consider the second part to be on par with the woke propaganda we are getting with films such as Mrs. Sloanne. It just happens to be on the other side of the spectrum.

Or "Don't Look Up" - seen that er, um, "Movie" yet?
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #39:
Synchronet first supported Windows NT v6.x (a.k.a. Vista/Win7) w/v3.14a (2006) Norco, CA WX: 69.5°F, 47.0% humidity, 3 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to Digital Man on Sun Oct 23 2022 04:39 pm

Brave of you. Bravo. I've only seen short snippets of this movie (all I could stand

Actually, the first half of the film is moderate as far as racism goes. It is completely partisan and biased, and certainly has segments that seem to suggest that "them niggas'" are happy when submitting to the will of their

i'm going to watch it tonight. can't be any worse than black adam.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Digital Man to Arelor on Sun Oct 23 2022 02:55 pm

I consider the second part to be on par with the woke propaganda we are getting with films such as Mrs. Sloanne. It just happens to be on the other
side of the spectrum.

Or "Don't Look Up" - seen that er, um, "Movie" yet?

No. It is not something I planned to do.

I got burned by Hollywood with that Black Panther monstruosity which shoehorned identitary politics so hard in a flick that should have been very serious business,
about guys in funny customers beating other guys in funny customes. Then I got burnt
with Western cinema in general with Mrs. Sloanne (summary: leftist politican organization is portrayed as heroic when capmpaigning against a right-wing group of
heterosexual whites, to the point all their crimes and bribing are morally justified,
and when the heterosexual whites convince a senator to trash them for the hideous
things they actually did, they are protrayed as evil monsters).

You may have noticed I try to watch either very old cinema, or Eastern Cinema. I think
the most modern US movie I've watched and enjoyed in a non junk-food sense is Upgrade
(2018).


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to Digital Man on Mon Oct 24 2022 06:39 am

I got burned by Hollywood with that Black Panther monstruosity which shoehorned identitary politics so hard in a flick that should have been very serious business, about guys in funny customers beating other guys in funny customes. Then I got burnt with Western cinema in general with Mrs. Sloanne

you didn't like black panther?
i liked it. except for the stupid colonizer shit

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: MRO to Arelor on Mon Oct 24 2022 07:35 am

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to Digital Man on Mon Oct 24 2022 06:39 am

I got burned by Hollywood with that Black Panther monstruosity which shoehorned identitary politics so hard in a flick that should have been very
serious business, about guys in funny customers beating other guys in funny
customes. Then I got burnt with Western cinema in general with Mrs. Sloanne

you didn't like black panther?
i liked it. except for the stupid colonizer shit

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

I didn't like Black Panther precisely because the colonizer shit was too heavy to be
overpassed by all the other merits the film had (which it did).

The premise of the film was that a black country had managed to survive and maintain
its supremacy and cultural integrity by denying entrance to foreigners. If you reversed the premise and the film was about a white country that had managed to
survive the cultural slaughter from blacks by denying them access, it would have been
labeled as a racist as fuck film, and for good reason.

I am lenient towards old films when they do things like this because I tend to consider them a product of their time. Shaft trying to save Harlem from white cops and
white mobsters was a product of its time. Wakandans complaining for what whites did to
them and blaming their problems on whites is just racism introduced with a political
agenda and pisses me no-end.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Arelor to MRO on Mon Oct 24 2022 12:51 pm

you didn't like black panther?
i liked it. except for the stupid colonizer shit

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

I didn't like Black Panther precisely because the colonizer shit was too heavy to be overpassed by all the other merits the film had (which it did).

The premise of the film was that a black country had managed to survive and maintain its supremacy and cultural integrity by denying entrance to foreigners. If you reversed the premise and the film was about a white country that had managed to survive the cultural slaughter from blacks by denying them access, it would have been labeled as a racist as fuck film,

it didn't deny entrance; they hid their country. it was the most advanced nation on the planet. they had the vibranium and kept it to themselves.

in the comics they are now an intergalactic empire.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

MRO wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

Of course you do.


-+- Brightening your day. -Bex <3

... Because we all share this planet earth, we have to learn to live in harmony

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
■ Synchronet ■ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

I think it was Lincoln himself who said that his main goal was to unify the USA and that he would take any flag that furthered that goal. If removal of slavery had not been an useful flag, he would not have used it. If the imposition of slavery had been a good flag to gather his people around, he would have used it. I don't remember the exact quite but the idea was just that one.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Arelor to MRO on Sat Nov 05 2022 09:59 am

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

I think it was Lincoln himself who said that his main goal was to unify the USA and that he would take any flag that furthered that goal. If removal of slavery had not been an useful flag, he would not have used it. If the imposition of slavery had been a good flag to gather his people around, he would have used it. I don't remember the exact quite but the idea was just that one.

the unifier was the war. the north won against the state.

each state drew up a declaration with reasons of why they were succeeding.
they didn't say 'because you are stopping slavery'. they had some really good points.

I did phrase that wrong. i should have said MAIN contributer. It certainly was a factor; the southern states not getting the support and respect they needed from the federal govt was the driving reason the southern states wanted to leave.

---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::