At the beginning of this year, I wrote an article exposing the Huffington Post’s double standard and anti-white agenda  when it comes to racialized casting in film and television series. The Huffington Post’s position reflects that of the mainstream media at large, whereby persons of color being cast in white roles is to be applauded, whereas whites being cast in non-white roles is to be denounced. We have yet another high-profile example in the current news, as Indian actor Dev Patel has been cast in the forthcoming cinematic adaptation of Charles Dickens’ novel David Copperfield entitled The Personal History of David Copperfield. Patel is best known for his lead role in 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire, for which he was nominated for a BAFTA.
Neither his acting talent nor lack thereof are in question here; what ought to be apparent is that yet another white male actor has been discriminated against in the name of “diversity.” In fact, judging by the photo above, the cast seems rather laden with men of color. Catherine Zeta-Jones having taken on a Hispanic role was an exception rather than the rule and her marriage into the Jollywood elite also probably had something to do with it, as well as other reasons into which I go in the article. In any case, it is the white male who is the primary target for blackwashing, because then the non-white man/white woman interracial couple can be propagandized as a norm in order to push white genocide through miscegenation. If you are new to Radical Rightist Websites like this one, just watch any commercial break on television and you will see what I mean.
One of the latest tricks in television advertising is to use a white female cancer patient in such a relationship. This evokes pathos by using the woman’s spiritedness while suffering from the disease so that the viewer’s sympathies are aroused towards the family unequivocally. Of course, the meta-narrative is aimed at white genocide and the people in the advert are mere actors, but the general public absorbs this propaganda uncritically, and pointing out the anti-white agenda in the advert would provoke a negative and hysterical reaction against the person doing so. And this would rather prove the point, because the masses would be synthesizing the two narratives, and a critique of the miscegenated family would be bound up with a perceived attack on someone with cancer. And because no one wants to be seen as a sociopathic monster, the propaganda goes unchallenged, and so do the real monsters behind the propaganda, who know precisely what they are doing every step of the way and hide behind an ostensibly benevolent charity like Macmillan Cancer Support, whose CEO Lynda Thomas earns at least £161,000 per annum, because charity begins at home . . . *cough*
To return to David Copperfield, the casting of a non-white has been perpetrated not only against whites in general, but against Charles Dickens in particular. Dickens was firmly on the Right when it came to politics, as I have discussed several times before, setting up literary magazines to combat Whig propaganda, and was a disciple of the philosopher Thomas Carlyle. Dickens’ novels and stories expose the evils of Whiggish liberal capitalism and exhort the middle classes into real and meaningful acts of charity. He gave public readings of A Christmas Carol, with a collection at the end so that the audience would donate alms for the poor. The character David Copperfield was very much based on Dickens himself, who wrote in the Preface to the 1869 edition:
Of all my books, I like this the best. It will be easily believed that I am a fond parent to every child of my fancy, and that no one can ever love that family as dearly as I love them. But, like many fond parents, I have in my heart of hearts a favourite child. And his name is DAVID COPPERFIELD.
David Copperfield’s initials are a reversal of Charles Dickens’ own and, although the episodes and characters in the novel are fictional, they are based on real characters and events in Dickens’ life. Indeed, it is interesting that the novel is written in the first person. The original illustrations by Hablot Knight Browne (a.k.a Phiz to Dickens’ Boz) show a very fair-looking boy, and later man (see the image to the right), in keeping with the native English. If all this seems very obvious to you, it is because you either already see through the Leftist and Zionist establishment’s lies or you were schooled before the minions of cultural Leftism completely rewrote the syllabi and history.
Much of our cultural information about the Victorian era comes via Dickens and cinematic interpretations of Dickens’ work. Dickens as culture-bearer pretty much dominates that period. As in all cultural texts, there is a degree of exaggeration for effect, and characters sometimes tend towards caricature and events arranged as to engender the maximum emotive reaction. The idea behind this is to motivate people into doing good and combating evil. Ninety percent of people are naturally lethargic until pushed, and a mitigated and qualified examination of “the condition of England” in novel form is not going to get people motivated and off their arses! Dickens’ observations on the era are therefore true, but an exaggerated Truth. This contrasts with the Left, who have no commitment to Truth whatsoever. The casting of Dev Patel is to perpetrate a lie about our history quite deliberately, to plant the notion in the masses’ consciousness that England and Europe beyond has always been multi-racial. To borrow from Marxism, the Leftist filmmakers are adding to the creation of a false consciousness in which white culture and civilization was not created by the white man.
This is why we have seen a reevaluation of the Victorian era over the last few years. One of the former incarnations of the Left – that of classical Marxism – very much sided with Dickens’ view of Victorian England as exploitative of the workers. In fact, Marx and Engels borrowed heavily from Dickens’ descriptions of English working-class life. As the current Left has no interest in the white working class, made up as it is primarily of creamy bourgeois self-loathing whites and a multi-ethnic rabble hailing largely from their respective countries’ underclass, Victorian England has been re-presented and represented as a diverse melting pot seeped in racial hatred, with non-whites portrayed as having been oppressed and struggling against adversity, yet having gone on somehow to make some vital contribution to society. Examples of such texts are the 2003 book by various “scholars,” Black Victorians, Black Victoriana; Walter Dean Myers’ 1999 book At Her Majesty’s Request: An African Princess in Victorian England; Gareth H. H. Davies’ book of last year, Pablo Fanque and the Victorian Circus: A Romance of Real Life; the 2010 Radio 4 program Britain’s Black Revolutionary about William Cuffay; the film Victoria & Abdul from last year, directed by Jewish director Stephen Frears; and so on.
Victoria & Abdul is particularly significant in that the name Abdul is similar phonetically to that of Victoria’s late husband Albert and is again an example of blackwashing, of directly replacing a white male with a non-white. In the film, Abdul very much serves as a replacement for Victoria’s lost husband, and she becomes subservient to him in the way in which feminists scream hysterically about “patriarchy!” in the case of white husbands. The film is very much reminiscent of the 1997 film Mrs. Brown, which uncoincidentally also stars Judi Dench in the same role of Queen Victoria. One could easily see this as essentially a remake in which John Brown has been blackwashed out by Abdul Karim, in which a white working-class male has been replaced by an “ethnic minority.” Of course, blackwashing in cinematic remakes and reboots goes on all the time: think of The Equalizer, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, The Manchurian Candidate, The Fantastic Four, Annie, and so on.
The director of this latest, very deceptive and dishonest interpretation of David Copperfield is Armando Iannucci, the son of Italian anti-fascists. He is very much of the postmodern Left that deconstructs everything European. It would be inaccurate to call him a Communist because he deconstructed Stalinism in his film, The Death of Stalin – although I suspect he would never have ridiculed Trotsky’s death. He is naturally beloved of The Guardian, who wrote a eulogy steeped in anti-white racial hatred , praising Iannucci for his allegedly “color-blind” casting. The Guardian is of course as dishonest as Iannucci himself. There is no colorblindness here, which is exposed by the producer Kevin Loader in the article itself:
“Armando always knew he wanted Dev,” says Loader. “Once you realise that, then you’re making a statement about the fact that you’re going to cast actors who are capable of embodying the character as perfectly as possible, regardless of their ethnicity. I was standing on the side of the set the other day, watching a scene between three of the younger characters. I suddenly realised I was watching three young black British actors in a Dickens adaptation, none of which were written as black characters. And it didn’t seem odd. It’s just another scene in the film.”
Loader makes the point that London in the 1840s was more diverse than costume dramas tend to depict. “London was the centre of a huge global empire and was full of everybody. Just as it’s a global city now. Traditionally, Dickens adaptations haven’t reflected that.”
It is the typical doublethink of the Left in which they try to convince themselves of being race-blind and yet simultaneously obsess over race. If one thinks about it, one has to obsess about race if one wishes to convince oneself it does not exist, just as the atheist obsesses about the Judaic god. I think about race, therefore I am racially aware. And there yet again we see the Ministry of Truth in action, rewriting Victorian history, just as I have outlined above. We are diverse; we have always been diverse. There is no white genocide because there is no such thing as whiteness, except when they deconstruct and denigrate it and place a white woman next to a man of color, or a white man next to an Asian woman, as a prompt to miscegenate. Is that not propagandizing white genocide? Is it not propagandizing White genocide every time a white is replaced by a non-white in his own cultural text? Yes, blackwashing is the promotion of White genocide.
The question remains as to what is to be done about all this. The first step is to stop going to the cinema. As Iago says, “Put money in thy purse.” After the box office abandonment of The Last Jedi, the Star Wars franchise is already in jeopardy. Let it be so with the whole establishment propaganda machine. Cut off the cash flow and you cut off their life’s blood. Secondly, and I have said this many times, but will say it many more until people get off their arses and become proactive: become culture-bearers yourselves. Learn our real history and write about it to inform others. Create your own films, stories, and cultural texts for our own people. Write articles critiquing the anti-white anti-culture of the Left and Zionists like this one. It costs nothing but time. Thirdly, disseminate and publicize these texts far and wide and make people aware of their existence. It takes little effort. You can do it with a few clicks of the mouse.
Speaking of such texts, as if by magic, our latest episode of Mjolnir at the Movies is on cinematic adaptations of a Charles Dickens novel, as we look at David Lean and Roman Polanski’s interpretations of Oliver Twist. Along the way, we discuss sexual abuse in Hollywood, the privileged status of the (((eternal victim group))), Tommy Robinson and his Zionist handlers, and racial awareness in history. And, as the still of Alec Guinness’ Fagin shows, the Happy Merchant meme has a long and distinguished history:
This article originally appeared at the Mjolnir Magazine  Website. Be sure to check out Mjolnir‘s YouTube channel, Mjolnir at the Movies , which features film commentary from a Right-wing pagan perspective.