Daily Archives: October 16, 2010

Politically incorrect film reviews – Harry Brown is very white

Harry Brown

Director: Daniel Barber

Cast: Ben Drew, Charlie Creed-Miles, David Bradley, Emily Mortimer, Iain Glen, Jack O’Connell, Liam Cunningham, Michael Caine, Sean Harris

  Harry Brown (Michael Caine) is an old man living on a council housing estate (public housing for those outside of Britain). This is a sink estate as imagined by white liberals, a place filled with what they fondly but mistakenly assume is the entire paraphernalia of such estates: gangs of youngsters causing trouble, drug dealers, knife and gun violence.  (The reality of such estates is that they are (1) very much not the norm and (2) you can readily survive on them if you keep your body language confident and you‘re streetwise. I have taken many a middle class pal into such territory and you can smell the fear on them even in broad daylight).

 Harry’s one friend Len (David Bradley) is knifed to death by a gang and Harry, an ex marine, goes on a vigilante rampage including multiple killing and torture. Shades of the Death Wish films? Gran Torino in South London? Well, not quite.

 This is a profoundly dishonest film. Not only does it take an absurdly hysterical middleclass view of working class communities, it tells a deliberate and calculated if implicit lie about the evils it purports to condemn. The implicit lie is that gang crime on poor estates is white crime, that gun crime is white crime, that knife crime is white crime, that drug dealing is white crime.

 It is a lie because these activities are overwhelmingly black crimes in Britain 2009. So prevalent is black gun and knife crime the Metropolitan Police (the London police force) have a special unit called Trident to investigate black on black killings, most of which are gun and knife related. (For two years I wrote a column for the sadly now defunct Right Now! Magazine entitled “The joy of diversity” for which I kept newspaper cuttings of ethnic mayhem. For a couple of months I kept a parallel file of similar white crimes. There wasn’t a single white knife or gun killing reported by the media during that time. )

 To enhance the lie, the action takes place on a South London estate which in real life is at the heart of a black ghetto. Despite this there is scarcely a black face to be seen in the film, a glaring fact studiously avoided by mainstream British film critics. The identified killers of Harry’s friend are white, the gangs on the estate are white, the drug dealers are white, the gun dealers are white, the innocent bystanders are white. It’s a miracle.

 There is one black face, but he is not seen doing anything actually reprehensible even though he is associated with the killers.  He is interviewed by the police after the killing of Len, but that is primarily to allow him to put the routine black excuse in Britain for carrying guns and knives, viz: “It’s for protection”. I say he is black, but he is black in the sense that Obama is black, that is not so black as to frighten the Caucasian middle-class liberal bigot horses.

The pc agitprop does not finish there. The police assigned to investigate the murder of Harry’s friend are a man and a woman, a Detective Sergeant and Inspector. Guess who is the inspector. That’s right, it’s the woman played by Emily Mortimer, a distinctly improbable circumstance even in today’s ostensibly pc worshipping Metropolitan Police . She also get a good kicking and punching at the end of the film, behaviour which displays another one of the truly obscene consequences of feminism, namely, that women engaging in masculine behaviour or in a traditionally masculine role are validated by acting as and being treated as men. Personally, I could quite happily get through life without seeing women brutally punched in the face and kicked in the ribs after they have fallen to the ground, but, hey, I suppose that makes me incorrigibly old fashioned. This type of moral abdication is not, of course, restricted to women in film , but can be found in films such as Munich and Inglourious Basterds where the grossly immoral behaviour of Arab terrorists and Nazis is used to justify equally brutal and immoral behaviour by Jews against Arabs and Germans, in the latter case against Germans in general including the beating to death with a baseball bat of a defenceless German soldier who refuses to betray his fellow soldiers by giving away their whereabouts. .

Just to put the cherry on the pc cake, when talking with the police about his Northern Ireland as a Royal Marine experience as compared with what he meets with on the estate Harry retails the Sinn Fein/IRA line of “At least they [Sinn Fein IRA] were fighting for a cause, these people are fighting for nothing”. Shades of Rebel Without a Cause.

But it is not all self-conscious pc propaganda. The film also displays the modern white liberal’s hatred and fear of the British white working class, a sub-class of humanity from which modern white liberals consider themselves to be firmly divorced. Consequently, the gang members and their hangers-on are all portrayed as not only vicious and uncontrolled, but slovenly and physically unappealing. This is a routine behaviour of elites who commonly despise those weaker than themselves, for example, look at the portrayal of peasants in Renaissance paintings and you will find them almost uniformly represented as ugly. (The undercurrent to this divorce of the white liberal elite and the white working class is the elite’s knowledge that they have betrayed the white working class through incontinent mass immigration and the remorseless application of political correctness, the consequences of which the rich white liberal fastidiously avoids).

There are other problems with the film. Caine is very good at playing the ruthless hard man, hard both physically and mentally, as he showed in Get Carter and Mona Lisa, but he is now too physically infirm to be convincing as an action man. He goes from being a complete outsider from the criminal fraternity to suddenly knowing where to get guns – try to get yourself a gun in Britain if you aren’t in the criminal know and the most likely supplier you will encounter is an under-cover copper. He can immediately use a modern weapon without training despite not having been a marine for at least 30 years. Weapons technology moves on in 30 years Mr Director,

I can’t say this is film not worth seeing because Caine is always worth watching and Emily Mortimer is an engaging actress. There is also Ben Drew, as the leader of the gang which kills Harry’s friend, who does what all natural film actors do, inhabitants the screen without trying. The action moves at a decent pace and the script is taut. Technically it is a good film. Go and see it but recognise it for what it is, a piece of good liberal bigot agitprop.

How well-to-do liberals choose to live – A lesson from Primrose Hill

I was walking down Regents Park Road in Primrose Hill  in the heart of London  recently  when  I was struck by a curious thing: the street had a distinctly old fashioned air. There were no  supermarkets, chain stores, no  MacDonald’s, not even a Starbucks or a Coffee Republic.  Instead  there were a string of independent   shops, cafes and restaurants.   The nearest to a chain store were branches of the off licences Threshers and Bibendum. None of the stores was of  mega-size , most were small, none sold  the tat which is the staple fare of  nearby Camden Town.  There was even that great modern rarity  a bona fide fishmongers.    The telephone boxes were the old iconic red ones.  There was a blissful  shortage  of street furniture and  signage.  The traffic was light and the pavements well inhabited  but not painfully crowded. There was not a tramp or drunk to be seen, nor  gangs of young men  loitering.  Apart from an up- market cybercafe it might have been a market town high street  from the 1950s.

Other things were striking.  Although Primrose Hill is in  central London   there was barely a  non-white face to be seen.  Even more remarkably  for these days,   the voices  I heard about  me in the street  were almost all  English.  The staff  in the shops were overwhelmingly white,  and  in  the couple of shops I went into they also turned out to be English. Away from the shops  a  similar unusual  cultural scene obtained, with the large houses and the streets  being overwhelmingly inhabited by  white faces and  English accents.  No council or housing association properties  stand amongst the urban villas . The place has  the unmistakable stench of wealth.

The interesting thing about  Primrose  Hill is that it is one of the favoured  residences of the denizens  of  the media and allied trades. If you talked to them or encountered them broadcasting  or writing , to  a man and a  woman they would effusively tell you of the benefits of multiculturalism, how marvellous  it has been  for the country,  how dreadful it would be if England was the England of old, that marvellously homogenous place so recklessly and traitorously  thrown away over the past  fifty years. Yet these are the people who choose to live in a place which comes closest  in modern London to precisely the  England they ostensibly decry.

These days most of the   Primrose Hill fraternity would also  happily parrot the  globalist creed  as well., for they converted to it when the Labour Party became NuLabour and embraced the Thatcherite economic faith.  Yet they do not choose to live in  an area touched by the economic  fruits of globalism .  Instead, they opt for  a  locality  which is miraculously protected from the chain stores and their ruthless  drive to  destroy the private shop and impose uniformity.   Not for the Primrose Hill set  the  vulgar traipse round the supermarket,  even a Waitrose,  but the old-fashioned and  civilised  shopping   which involves personal service from people who understand  their products and  display  a  civility  which is dignified  rather than chummy.

That most of the inhabitants  of Primrose Hill are card-carrying  members of the “right-on” brigade   is unsurprising , because the only people who can afford to be relaxed about  the effects of globalism  are those  who can  avoid  its  consequences, or at least its most immediate and  obnoxious effects.

Not for them the “joy of diversity”  of  living in a tower block on a council estate  where they are the only white resident. Not for them the sending of their children to schools which boast  “179  languages spoken here”   and  where their  child  is the only white child in his form,  children such as   15-year old  working-class boy Richard Everitt  murdered by a Bangladeshi gang in the  1990s  who attacked him simply because they had decided to harm a white boy .  Not for them gangs of young  men in the streets. Not for them street dealers operating openly before the police. . Not for them an area shorn of  shops except those run by ethnic minorities,  where the only meat available is halal  and  if English is spoken at all  it is spoken as a second language.  Not for them the feeling that they are a stranger in their own land.

The very white, very English, very old-fashioned  world that is  found in Primrose Hill is mirrored wherever  the better-off congregate, whether that be inner city enclaves  such as  Primrose Hill and Hampstead  or  villages in  leafy Surrey or Cheshire.  The  less  well off – the large majority –  must take pot luck .for they cannot move where they choose.  . Those born and raised in  an area which is still   largely untouched by immigration still have the luxury of living in  an English  environment, although  they will not have the further luxury of living in  a world  with the other goods which  those in places like Primrose Hill enjoy such as  independently  owned  shops  with polite, knowledgeable and attentive staff.  But  even those born and raised  in such  places  are  vulnerable to  being forced  out as  house prices  rocket,  east European  immigrants flood  the local  labour market  taking jobs and lowering wages, more and more second homes are bought by  well-off outsiders  and  by the refugees of   middle-class “white flight” from the immigration-infested towns and cities  to those parts of England which are still England.

For the poor  born  and raised in  paces with large immigrant populations  – first, second, third generation  immigrants and so on –  there is no  choice.  They have  to live cheek-by-jowl with the  immigrants, send their children to immigrant dominated schools,  shop in  local stores  owned by immigrants. The older amongst them will have seen  their  previously homogeneous  community  transformed by mass immigration, often at a bewildering speed., but always within their  lifetime.

But it is not only those who  are unmistakably poor who are vulnerable.  Increasingly  those who are solidly middle-class by background and  occupation are finding that  they are being priced out of a means  to escape  the effects of  mass immigration. Our elite have made living  in  an English environment , whether in an enclave in urban areas with a large ethnic contingent or  in an area as yet not subject to mass immigration, an expensive business . Many  of the white, English  middle-class  are finding to their horror that they cannot engage in “white flight” to  areas  where  they can enjoy  a society devoid of all that wonderful diversity  they are supposed to adore.  House prices are too high,  suitable jobs too few. Most disturbingly, even if they do manage to escape they cannot be sure that where they have  gone will not fall to the immigrant wave or  the local  economy be demolished by the  relentless march of the  chain store. To have the best of all worlds – the secure world of  Primrose Hill –  is very expensive indeed.

What lesson can we draw from all this?   It is a very simple one: this is the way people  normally choose to live  when they have the choice.  They wish to be in an area where they are ethnically dominant  because that makes them feel secure.  They choose to  avoid the  de-personalised uniformity of life which is  the lot of the vast majority  who are left  only with supermarkets and chain stores  within reach.  They want people to serve them who are polite and competent.   Of course, not every  person will want exactly the same environment  but the will want the same basic things of an ethnically secure territory, better quality products and   reliable service.

%d bloggers like this: