Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Blank-Slate as Result, not Origin: The Hundred-Foot Journey

We've discussed three example Jenomic narratives designed to encourage (for better or for worse) feelings of hostility toward independent civilizations of any kind, primarily directed at European ethnicities and cultural habits. These narratives present themselves as--and are generally perceived as--"anti-establishment," in the sense that they seem to be challenging European-derived genetics and cultures by subtly demeaning them. The demeaning nature isn't readily apparent to most participants, who see white protagonists and conclude that it's just another movie, but those possessed of sufficient emotional intelligence, and who pay deeper attention, are able to recognize the then-obvious pattern. Confronted with series of big-money narratives like these, it can seem that Jenomic cultural influence is directed specifically and only against "whites" or "Europeans," or "men" or "Christians."

The latter are ridiculous conclusions, given the still-ongoing relationship between the American military and secret police services and media corporations. Clint Eastwood aside, traditionally European, colonial, will-to-power white martial valor is still exceptionalized, though now, the token female colonel and brown CIA agent make bigotry a multiculturalist endeavor. And yet, as ridiculous as they are, those conclusions are obviously also true. Hollywood's ferocity has turned against men, whites, and Christians as seriously as it once did, and still does to a more nuanced effect, against stereotypical sheiks in flowing white headdresses: the repeated torture of perverted white prisoners, joyful mass murder of white anypersons for anyreason, and the lengthy pursuits of surreally-psychotic white hypercriminals in the new breed of cop and murder show, makes that evident. It isn't that Hollywood has changed directions; it's simply expanded its repertoire of hatred a little bit.

Is anyone surprised? Since its inception, Hollywood's Amerindian portrayal has stoked the ego of one set of massacrists valuable to Hollywood, but without a strong USSR to justify the profit grindery, it's only natural that new fuel would need to be tossed on the fire. Portrayals were never meant to be accurate; they were meant to achieve an end. Thirty years of lisp jokes have come full circle to bite straight-talkers in the ass. Now, the Europeans whom Hollywood spent so long priming to murder non-Europeans are watching Hollywood prime non-Europeans to murder Europeans. What a truly predictable injustice. Like the litigious gays now being supported by Chosen corporations in ruining straight lives--and who will find themselves, after a while, back on the receiving end of artificial culture--the Europeans who fell for Hollywood's "You are special and righteous" stories are finding the Django pointed back in their direction.

Long-Running Tropes

The process of corporate media changing from Euro-promotion to Euro-demotion has been slow but sure. It passed through the stages of the 1980s, where movies started focusing heavily on abusive (white) fathers and random (almost always white, contra the Willie-Horton-style statistical reality) rapists, and of the 1990s, where every other movie was about a failed middle class father who was a high earner but neglected his poor perfect children. The Simpsons, beginning in 1989, portrays a world where all white people are massively hypocritical neurotics unless they're merely fat, stupid, and violent, and where the only two genuinely good, non-violent characters are an Italian-ish male homosexual and a Jewish substitute teacher--John (Waters, S8E15) and Mr. Bergstrom (Hoffman, S2E19), respectively. Even the handful of available Springfieldian lesbians, East Asians, and blacks is glimpsed in horrid selfishness or sickening neurotica, leaving no path to perfection that is neither Judaic nor homophiliac.

America's other most popular sitcoms follow the same mold--not only, like The Simpsons, by being developed, produced, and frequently written by members of the Chosen caste, but exhibiting the same Chosen cultural perspective. Seinfeld, too, is a triumph of bigotry. We've previously discussed the racist construction of the show in Seinfeld and Reality TV and The Soup Nazi. Like The Simpsons, the world of Seinfeld is foundationally racist: Jerry, the wealthy white Jew, is constantly mooched off of by his lazy, fat/ugly friends, George and Kramer, who can't hold down a job and who are always eating his food without contributing, and getting him involved in stupid goy schemes. Julia Dreyfus, an actress of Jewish descent, portrays Elaine, a "white" woman who lusts after Jerry's money--the patriarchal scenes of Elaine drooling over Jerry's income, time after time, would have been grossly inappropriate in the culture of the American 1990s, except when the woman shown to be a worthless, incompetent submissive was white, and when the object of her avaricious lust was Jewish. No other popular media trend would dare demean women in that way--unless the woman was a mere goy, who could be expected to do little more than futilely pursue superior Chosen earning power.

Many of the other plots of Seinfeld revolved around similar themes--Jerry rejecting various white untouchable/goyim suitresses because they weren't clean, submissive, or proper enough, while the laugh track cued the target audience in at when to laugh at the endless slew of goyim inadequacies. It seems ironic, impossible, that Seinfeld could be so incredibly sexist again and again, yet so incredibly popular during the PC era--until you view the show through a lens of racial superiority, which is so powerful that it transcends second-wave feminism. After all, patriarchy and the demeaning of the female are only problems when they are practiced by goys. Like they say, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

(On the occasion of Elaine, the cryptologically-inclined Chosen actress playing a goy female, encountering an actual goy with hints of Christian religious traditions, Seinfeld didn't waste the opportunity. The subjugation of the female to the male was meant only to occur in the context of goy females lusting after Jewish males; when Jewish males aren't around, the show's skewed feminism reasserted itself. David Puddy, e.g., is so dumb he'd stare at the back of a seat for a ten hour international flight, rather than read a magazine or take a nap. The racism isn't exclusively anti-white; Seinfeld is racist toward every non-Chosen caste, insulting touchy Southeast Asian postmen, lazy or violent black musicians or little people, greedy and stupid and touchy women, inherently worthless and shameful bald men, and of course, dirty Arabs, dirty Arabs, dirty Arabs...)

The three prominent selections we looked at recently--Prisoners, Fortitude, and True Detective--all sought to disseminate a message "against white people." Also in favor of torture, central banking, and lack of autonomous governmental units of any kind, but primarily against white people as inherently disgusting, evil subhuman trash. The power of this concerted message, and the blatantly coordinated way in which these stories were released into "the free market" by the same essential sources of finance capital, could lead one to think that this agenda is a specific one. Not so--we'll now look at another variety of agenda being employed, currently and popularly, from the same capital flows, but with a variation on the message that makes it clear that the issue isn't a specific assault on genetic whiteness.

The Hundred-Foot Journey's Plot

The Hundred-Foot Journey was released in 2014 to much professional acclaim. Though quite superficially dissimilar in theme, the ethnic composition of its creators is similar to that of the last three titles discussed. The film was based upon a novel by Richard C. Morais, who is of unadvertised Jewish descent, and whose parentage includes semi-prominent connections to Jungian psychotherapy and related Weimar- and Post-WW2 cultural movements. Dreamworks, the Spielberg/Katzenberg/Geffen company under Disney, produced the film, hiring a Swede and an Anglo to be the screenwriting/directing face.

Here's the plot: Hassan, an Indian chef, moves to France with his family after his family's original restaurant in India burns down. Hassan's father, Papa Kadam, starts a restaurant in France, across the street from a fancy French restaurant run by Madame Mallory. The restaurants compete for a while, during which Hassan meets Marguerite, the local girl with whom he eventually develops a romantic relationship. Madame Mallory and Papa Kadam have little next-door-neighbor style arguments about architectural coding, advertising, and food orders, in addition to trying to steal each other's customers.

After a while, the jealous head chef at Madame Mallory's restaurant--Jean-Pierre--gets so infuriated with the Indian restaurant across the street that he and a couple of hotheaded Gallic youths damage the Indian restaurant and scrawl nationalist sentiments out front. Madame Mallory grows angry at this undignified action, fires Jean-Pierre, and hires Hassan away from his father, promising Papa Kadam that she can expose Hassan to a wider world and make him a better chef. Under her tutelage, Hassan increases his skill in cooking, transitions to an ultra-expensive restaurant in Paris, and ends up on the cover of cooking magazines. Eventually, once Madame Mallory and Papa Kadam have grown older, they decide to reconcile their differences and get married. Happy ending.

The Messages

On the surface, The Hundred-Foot Journey seems like the perfect multiculturalist message for a modern movie studio. Consider: The narrative (1) lionizes immigrants as hard working and dedicated by portraying Papa Kadam as a skilled businessman, and Hassan and his brother as talented and ready workers; it (2) portrays white men as petty, jealous, and violent, while (3) portraying non-white immigrants to Europe as peaceful, quiet, and accepting; it (4) promotes sexual relationships between non-white male immigrants and white female natives, while never suggesting that white men should have similar opportunities with non-white females (they save those relationships for movies with different target audiences); and, it (5) sends a strong integrationist message by proving that Hassan and Papa Kadam were able to integrate so well into French society that they master it.

This seems like a complete affirmation of multiculturalism and equality, no? And yet, although The Hundred-Foot Journey does indeed promote the viewpoints listed in the above paragraph, it does so in an insidious way that serves far more ends than merely acclimating people with European genes to promote third-world immigration.

How so? Well, the narrative is clever. Why did Hassan and Papa Kadam leave India to start a restaurant in France? Because their family restaurant in India was firebombed by a mob of rampaging darkies who murdered Hassan's mother.

Wait--what? Yes, you read that right: the sweet-hearted, pro-multicultural family movie about Indians making it good in France is founded on the premise of the inherent savagery and political incompetence of the Indian sub-continent. Can't trust those Hindu darkies, don'tcha know; build a restaurant near them, and a mob of them shows up with firebombs.

So now we get Hassan to France, right, and he's there learning how to cook. The bulk of the movie is based on his development as a chef: and his transition away from cooking the gross, inferior, rustic Indian cuisine, the way his mother and all his ancestors did, toward the "more skilled" preparation of French cuisine. In order to become the film's hero, Hassan abandons his family, his people, and his culture, throws aside the Indian in himself, and adopts all the trappings of French culture. In truth, The Hundred-Foot Journey is not a story about Indian equality, but one of the successful colonialism of an Indian Mongoloid family by their French Caucasoid superiors.

How? Hassan was a master Indian chef. He cooked dishes made with lentils; spinach; beans; spices shaved from trees and gathered from dried plants; he seasoned lamb and chicken, prepared rice and naan, and did all the good "Indian cuisine" stuff. When he begins dating Marguerite, Marguerite kindly, yet snobbily, informs Hassan that he is wasting his life by making Indian cuisine, and that, to be a truly good chef, he must earn the approval of Madame Mallory. Plus, Madame Mallory is so uber-cool and skilled that she can tell how good a chef is by taking a single bite of an omelet made by said chef.

Despite lots of pushing by Marguerite, Hassan doesn't fully realize he needs to abandon his Indian background until Jean-Pierre and the token goons have defaced his family restaurant--the "violent white backlash" is really just a narrative device used to make Hassan realize that he can't keep being a primitive any longer, and needs to dump Indian culture and more strenuously seek the approval of the aging Gallic woman in order to really "make something" of himself.

Even once Hassan has been hired by Madame Mallory, it's not enough for her or for Marguerite: Hassan needs to leave his family behind physically, too (remember, the restaurants are across the street from each other) and move to a big city, where he can "prove" that he is a good chef by working in a skyscraper-restaurant where rich people come seeking exorbitantly priced "innovative" dishes, based primarily around the world's great cuisines: in a word, French cuisine.

French v. Indian

Admittedly, French cuisine is tasty. But it's also fucking terrible, compared to Indian cuisine. Indian cuisine is ancient, healthy, and elegant, drawing its flavor and variation from a much broader array of natural spices from a much larger geohistorical area. When you eat Indian food, you're eating meats seasoned with plants and trees; you're eating much more of the animal and much more of the plant, being healthier and more renewable and all of that other stuff. Indian cuisine comes out of the ground in vast variety, and its spices are composed of these amazing, long-jar-life components based mostly on sun-drying plants you can grow in your backyard.

By contrast, when you eat French cuisine, a primary component of what you are eating is selected bovine runoff. French cuisine is based around the heavy seasoning of meats (and, to some extent, plants) with the oozings that leak from a cow's udder. This process produces a lot of waste and slop, and involves needing a lot more cows than you're going to eat, in order to refine the cow oozings that are going to go into any particular dish. Whereas Indian food is served simmering in a rich vegetable sauce, laden with vitamins and a great protein/carb/fat ratio, and served alongside rice grains harvested directly from the land with minimal processing, French food is served glistening with thick coats of udder-scraped cow, or machine-mashed soybean oils, and served alongside heavily processed grains that are milled, beaten, stored, recombined, and baked into bread. France is high fat, heavily processed carbs, where you need vegetable and fruit "sides" to provide the vitamins that the central dish is either entirely missing, or quite deficient in--in contrast to India's dishes, which use natural dietary requirements, rather than heaps of processed sugars and stored fats, to produce a "dish."

French cuisine bases so many of its main courses around meats soaked in recirculated cow-juice skimmings, that it has to develop "side" dishes and "desserts" to employ the many hyper-processed fruits and vegetables that make their way to its tables, laden with sugary syrups and fatty sauces that preserve the produce from serf to table. France's monstrously fat, inbred nobility over the centuries, as well as the western European convention of meals filled with "courses" subdivided into different preserved sections, pay testament to the mummification techniques (however tasty they are) that produce the West's idea of "a proper meal." East and Southeast Asians have fewer cooking implements because they need fewer: because, by cooking fresher, healthier food, they didn't develop the need for grossly oversized kitchens, pantries, houses, and barns; they also didn't need to come up with fourteen different kinds of fork and six kinds of plate in order to maintain their variegated undead courses in differently-flavored formaldehydes for presentation to the family.

All of this applies to many other great cuisines, too. Chinese, Japanese, Thai: barring the western-influenced stuff, these cuisines are based around less-processed, less-fattied foods, straight from the field or meadow to the table, and without the necessity of developing "courses" in which differently-preserved food is heated up inside fat/sugar glazes to be eaten piece by piece. Some people will point out that, "Oh, the French eat more fat and they live longer." Yes, compared to America as a whole, with its large population of homeless children, desert immigrants, and African American street violence. But comparing upper middle class French who eat the French diet and have lifelong access to French medical care, to, say, upper middle class Japanese who eat the Japanese diet and have lifelong access to Japanese medical care, the affects of cuisine-style on health are more accurately portrayed, to the disadvantage of the long-stockinged nose-talkers.

Blank Slate as Result

Discount all of that, though--it doesn't matter which cuisine is actually "better," tastier, or healthier, or which cuisine is more sustainable, et cetera. For the purposes of the narrative, what is important to study is that, for Hassan and Papa Kadam, all dat white pussy comes with a price: subjugation to the cow-drippings snob-system of the superior French culture. The Chosen who are out there making these movies, and who are trying to destroy European identity, small-town identity, Christian identity--whatever--those Chosen are not doing so because they believe that humans are blank genetic slates. Rather, they're trying to guide humans into blank-slate results. What the Chosen say with their movies is this: everyone, not just inbred whites from northwestern Europe, is free to embrace the horrid snobbery and destructive pomposity of the Ancien RĂ©gime.

The Chosen's older-style racist movies focused just on genetic characteristics as a predictor of behavior. That style is still prevalent in current corporate media attacks on white people, though: a style in which racial identifiers, e.g., white skin, are correlated to the quality of character. With non-whites, though--such as Hassan--the message has moved to a gentler one. Now, all races are okay, and all cultures are okay, so long as everyone accepts that true advancement is demonstrated by conforming to certain behavioral patterns.

It would be seemingly more ironic for the movie and its criticism of Indian cuisine as lesser if we consider that Indian cuisine is a white-originated cuisine. The Indo-European ("Indo-Aryan") tribes--sources of the earliest Vedic culture, Hinduism & Buddhism, etc.--established what became modern Indian cuisine. So, when the Chosen slurs "Indian" cuisine and exalts "European" cuisine, it's not really a racial attack. It's a lifestyle-choice attack. What these people want is not diversity, or else it would've been acceptable for Hassan, and protagonists like him, to reject Madame Mallory and embrace their grandparents' memories and bring Indian cuisine to the top of the culinary world without the help of old Gallic broads. Rather, they're seeking uniformity: the equal right for everyone to submit themselves to the horrid, caste-based rituals of the colonial civilizations that they have funded into a thousand years of war.

No comments:

Post a Comment