Monday, January 20, 2014

Fumento Flashback!

I'm still cranking away on this script (due, I note with steadily increasing horror, on January 31), so please forgive me for digging into the archives to keep the old joint wheezing along.  On the bright side, this was one of the few Wo'C posts which so sufficiently stirred the target -- conservative writer and banana-hammock hobbyist Michael Fumento -- that he made a cameo appearance in comments, spread his nether cheeks, and plopped out a remark of such effortless sociopathy that it sparked a lengthy thread full of eloquent contempt and surgical blood-letting (which I've included below the fold).

Enjoy!

[Originally published July 9th, 2007]

Nice Actor, But Does He Come in White?


Roy points us to this piece by Michael Fumento, who feels that Hollywood has failed in its responsibility to defend and propound American values, despite getting off to a strong start with films like Birth of a Nation and Race Suicide.
In 1942, Hollywood went to war. It began pumping out countless movies designed to be both entertaining and instructive as to the nature of our enemies. A lot of them were done on the cheap and others were pretty hokey, but they kept drilling home the message that we must persevere no matter the costs or how long it would take. Fast forward that reel to the post-9/11 era. Just how many movies can you count in which Islamist terrorists are the bad guys and that do not specifically concern the Sept. 11 attacks?
In the Second World War, America was united in the belief that we faced an existential threat, and this unanimity was largely due to a motion picture industry that was unafraid to put this powerful medium to use supporting the internment of citizens who were suspected of unAmerican sympathies or epicanthic folds.  If I may quote from the 1943 Columbia Pictures serial, The Batman:

“This was part of a foreign land, transplanted bodily to America and known as Little Tokyo.  Since a wise government rounded up the shifty-eyed Japs, it has become virtually a ghost street, where only one business survives.”

The business in question being the “Japanese Cave of Horror”, a carnival-like Tunnel of Love, except that it’s full of mannequins dressed as Imperial Japanese soldiers who are threatening Margaret Dumont with a bayonet.  The 12-episode serial went out of its way to highlight that America was under siege by an alien race, sprinkling the dialogue with references to “squint-eyes” and noting that one character’s craven actions made him as yellow “as the color of [his] skin.”

Most important of all is that this chapterplay was intended mostly for children, thus providing the kind of moral fiber in their formative years that these kids would later need to kill Asians in Korea and Vietnam.
Meanwhile – and this may be considered a spoiler, so if you haven’t seen the movie look out – the just-released fourth installment of the Die Hard series, Live Free or Die Hard, teaches us that just because there are some bad guys out to destroy America doesn’t mean they have to be bin Laden’s buddies.
In fact, it was the Department of Homeland Security that turns out to have been more or less responsible for the attack in the first place. Meanwhile one of the few good guys in the movie, the head of the FBI team that aids our hero John McCain[sic], looks decidedly Arabic.
This non-traditional casting fad is ruining the delicate suspension of disbelief so necessary to enjoying a summer action movie.  And the sad thing is, there was a time when Hollywood was scrupulous about depicting America’s racial minorities as certain easily-offended regions of the country perceived them to be, without distorting it through some colorblind lens.  Why, just imagine Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves if they’d succumbed to PC pressure and drawn the characters as white!  It wouldn’t have made any sense at all!

I’m glad there are still a few brave souls who will hold Hollywood to account for implying that an FBI agent is Arabic by casting a New Zealander named Cliff Curtis and calling the character “Bowman.”
One of last year’s most critically-acclaimed films was the severely disjointed Babel in which what is treated as a terrorist shooting of an American woman in Morocco turns out to have been an accident. Heck, it wasn’t even an AK-47 involved but rather a Japanese hunter’s rifle.
While Fumento was clearly let down by the lack of a Kalashnikov-wielding terrorist in an esoteric art film, he should take heart from the fact that Hollywood is still warning Americans (or at least, American tourists in Morocco) about the insidious Japanese.  I mean, it’s been 67 years; that’s some serious drilling home.

Anyway, the writer and director of Babel were both Spanish, which figures, 'cause you know how those Iberian nancyboys rolled bum-up for the Moors.
If I’m mistaken and there have been movies in which Islamists where the bad guys, please let me know.
Because boners don’t just happen.  A fella needs a little help.
In any event, where once Hollywood shored up a resolute but war-weary public (Everyone knew somebody who had been killed or maimed and they thought the war would last well into 1946 or beyond), Hollywood now feels its job is to assure us that with terrorism we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Even while traveling in countries with strong Islamist movements. Never mind that the week the new Die Hard came out there were two aborted terrorist attacks in Great Britain perpetrated by middle class Islamist physicians living as normal Britons – a truly scary scenario that’s right out of a movie like The Manchurian Candidate.
Which prompted these remarks from commenter Marlowe over at Matt Yglesias’ place:
The utter fatuous cluelesness of Fumento and his ilk is amusingly illustrated by his comment that the doctors suspected in the recent British terrorist plot was “a truly scary scenario that’s right out of a movie like The Manchurian Candidate.” As anyone with a functioning brain that has seen that classic film knows, the ultimate goal of the Chinese plot was to install James Gregory (playing a barely disguised version of Joe McCarthy controlled by his wife–Angela Lansbury as an icy Chicom mole) in the White House. In other words, the plotters were (correctly) aware that the best way to destroy the US was make sure it was led by a fear mongering arch-conservative. Of course, such people are incapable of detecting irony.
However, unaware that the batteries are dead in his irony detector, Fumento continues to wander over the beach, resolutely sweeping it back and forth:
One of the ironies is that you don’t even need to create fictitious Islamist villains; the real ones are so classically evil.
So classicially evil…so…so deliciously eeeevil!  (I’ve discovered that this column goes down a lot easier if you imagine it being read aloud by the Joker.  The Cesar Romero version.)
Look, you can’t live on the edge of your seat all the time in a war that could last a generation or far longer.
The Carthaginians tried it during the Second Punic War, and their legs eventually went to sleep.
If we think we see a bomb in every backpack, the terrorists are winning.
Or at least the Bush Administration is.
But there’s got to be a happy medium. Hollywood doesn’t see it that way. A lot of people have suggested that, pathetically, it’s going to take another terrorist attack to wake us from our slumber.
Oh come on, nobody would be heartless, cynical, or just plain stupid enough to make a statement like that.
In his first interview as the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan told a reporter that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.
“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001],” Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”
Okay, my bad.  Hey, if any of you terrorists are currently working on Chairman Milligan’s Anti-Naysayer Plot, Fumento has a bit of operational advice:
Wouldn’t it be fitting if [the terrorist attack] were in a movie theater?
Ah, it looks like Michael finally replaced the batteries and found some irony over by the frozen banana stand.  Sure, it’s got a little gum and sand stuck to it, but I'm sure Alanis Morissette will still give him a good price for it.

Posted by scott on Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 4:11 pm.

Original comments -- including Special Guest Villain Michael Fumento -- below:

49 Responses to “Nice Actor, But Does He Come In White?”
So, “Arabic looking” protagonists are out. And there’s a lot of Muslims in Indonesia and Thailand and other Asian nations, so the “squint eyes” are out to. And just look at Somalia! So no Blacks. We white Americans must step up and courageously take all the heroic rolls in every movie made for the next few generations. Y’know, to be instructive on the nature of our enemies.

(sigh) Yet another embarrassingly clueless and racist white guy shooting his mouth off without the slightest hint of self awareness. Fumento wants a real war to be portrayed as some sort of cartoony good Vs. EEEEVVIIIILLL action flick. I like cartoons and action flicks, but at least I can tell the difference between them and reality. 

Also:

“our hero John McCain”

No comment.
That isn’t sand-it’s particles of his brain leaking out of his ear…the biggest particles.
teaches us that just because there are some bad guys out to destroy America doesn’t mean they have to be bin Laden’s buddies.

That really is a remarkably unremarkable proposition, assuming you’re smarter than the rust rings the shaving gel can leaves on the side of the bathtub.

Once again, the enemy of my enemy is pretty often some asshole I want nothing to do with. Presumably bin Laden feels the same way about, say, the Christian Reconstruction movement or the lizard alien anti-tax cult or the Unabomber or Fred Phelps.
Because I say an actor is “Arabic-looking” I’m a racist?
1. The point is that this was part of bending over backwards not to implicate Muslim terrorists.
2. Arabs are Caucasian, like me.
3. The actor in question actually played an Arab in a previous movie, Three Kings.
This accusation represents the combined intelligence of the original blogger and his idiot acolytes. I’ll bet you all split a gut laughing when those Twin Towers fell.

Mr. Fumento: Am I racist pointing out your name is Japanese-ish? I bet you got a hard-on when the towers fell.
Mr. Fumento wrote:
“This accusation represents the combined intelligence of the original blogger and his idiot acolytes. I’ll bet you all split a gut laughing when those Twin Towers fell.”

Wow, what an utter shit-heel you are. That someone pays you to write drivel like this astounds me.
Y’know, one of the wartime films that came out of Hollywood was I Accuse My Parents. While it makes for a _great_ MST3K episode, it’s really not something I want to see churned out on a regular basis. The current onslaught of sequels and remakes is bad enough!
isn’t michael fumento the guy who was sacked by Scripps for taking undisclosed bribes from Monsanto to write pro-GM guff? He must be finding it difficult to get another job if he’s reduced to movie reviews.
A guy named fumento is caucasian? sure and after his hardon went away he enlisted, right?
Hey, Fumento….did it ever occur to you, you know, maybe once, that the reason we don’t demonize our enemies anymore is precisely to avoid another World War?

What a doosh. There are billions of Muslims worldwide, mostly in Africa and Asia. A tiny fraction of a percent hated us before we invaded Iraq. Now, maybe it’s reached the single digit percentages with the atrocities and hegemonic stretch we’ve made.

And yet, here YOU are, advocating that we piss the rest of them off?

Idjit. Motherfucking idjit. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

So cry me a river, build a bridge and get over yourself, asshole…
Hey, Fumento….did it ever occur to you, you know, maybe once, that the reason we don’t demonize our enemies anymore is precisely to avoid another World War?

While the point about demonizing any group of people is well taken, there is a wide gap between demonizing enemies (as when Bugs Bunny “Nipped the Nips” in WWII) and not bending over backwards to avoid depicting Islamic terrorists in movies in order to meet politically correct goals run amok. 

Personally, I find it odd and intellectually insulting that Hollywood always makes terrorists Eastern Europeans or domestic government conspirators, etc.

And yet, here YOU are, advocating that we piss the rest of them off?

Strange to see anyone forfeit creative latitude or realism to nationalistic goal of avoiding “pissing some folks off,” specifically a diverse racial/religious mix of upwards of a couple billion people.

I do not advocate going out of one’s way to give offense, but going out of one’s way in the other direction gives up something rather important.
In the original post:

So classicially evil…so…so deliciously eeeevil!

Fumento actually has a very good point here. Terrorists are indeed classically, astoundingly evil, in terms that insulated westerners have trouble processing.
See here:
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
and here:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002955.php
It’s in our best interest to jettison moral relativism that either can’t recognize this or simply glosses over it.
Fumento is just another tough-talking neocon who is either too afraid or too busy to put his own ass and money on the line to fight the glorious war against the Islamofascist hoards. Did it ever occur to Fumento that although many of the “terr’ists” we see today appear to be either Arab, Muslim, or both, most Arabs and Muslims are not terrorists and don’t support the terrorists. Too many Americans already equate Arab and Muslim with terrorist. We don’t need Hollywood to further increase that kind of ignorance and bigotry. Fumento is a shit-heel (to borrow the term from Nick J. above).
What are these “countless movies” he’s talking about? The only Hollywood movies of 1942 about WW2 I can only think of are Casablanca and the Donald Duck short, “Der Fuhrer’s Face”.

And I’m sure the Fumento of that era was complaining that Hollywood was wasting time with films about boozy expatriot club owners and delirious cartoon ducks when it shuld have been showing things BOMBS AND KILLING.
ROFLMAO
And, although I’m sure it will condemn me to an afterlife on the 9th level digging sewer in hell, I just have to say that Mr. F’s picture on his bio reminds me of a zombie.

Lord knows he could use the brains.
My other comment is awaiting moderation, so I hope it will apppear shortly. In the meantime, regarding this:

Fumento is just another tough-talking neocon who is either too afraid or too busy to put his own ass and money on the line to fight the glorious war against the Islamofascist hoards.

In addition to having previously served in the Army, Fumento has done several media embeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least a couple of them in the most dangerous city in Iraq (at the time), Ramadi.

So your “chickenhawk” assessment is a bit off target in this case, in addition to the fundamental flaws of an argument that invalidates the opinion of anyone who does not serve in the military when commenting on war.
I’ll just repost my other comment, as there’s nothing offensive:

Hey, Fumento….did it ever occur to you, you know, maybe once, that the reason we don’t demonize our enemies anymore is precisely to avoid another World War?

While the point about demonizing any group of people is valid and well taken, there is a wide gap between demonizing enemies (as when Bugs Bunny “Nipped the Nips” in WWII) and not bending over backwards to avoid depicting Islamic terrorists in movies in order to meet politically correct goals run amok. 

Personally, I find it odd and intellectually insulting that Hollywood always makes terrorists Eastern Europeans or domestic government conspirators, etc.

And yet, here YOU are, advocating that we piss the rest of them off?

Strange to see anyone forfeit creative latitude or realism to nationalistic goal of avoiding “pissing some folks off,” specifically a diverse racial/religious mix of upwards of a couple billion people.

I do not advocate going out of one’s way to give offense, but going out of one’s way in the other direction gives up something rather important.

In the original post:
So classicially evil…so…so deliciously eeeevil!

Fumento actually has a very good point here. Terrorists are indeed classically, astoundingly evil, in terms that insulated westerners have trouble processing.
See here:
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
and here:
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002955.php
It’s in our best interest to jettison moral relativism that either can’t recognize this or simply glosses over it.
wonder who paid Mr. F to write this comment? K-R?
It’s in our best interest to jettison moral relativism that either can’t recognize this or simply glosses over it.

You know what Bill, you’re right. That’s why a semi-literate, wholly-ignorant scumbag like Fumento should either write the fucking movie or shut the fuck up. 

Not enough hateful Arabs in movies for your tastes? First, that’s idiotic — seeing as how we were treated to United 93, a docudrama done not four years after the attacks, to say nothing of TWO haigiographies of GW’s amazing response to the attacks, and a slobbering celebration of FIVE YEARS of torture fantasies in 24. Plenty of bad Islamicists there, don’t you think.

And hell, we’ve had six straight years of fear-soaked media blathering about how they’re planning something big, how we’ve offed yet another #2 in Al Queda, the WoT and what not. The amount of fiction contained in these Pentagon Morality plays that air on CNN and FOX, reach the level of pure propaganda that has proven deicisively unpopular by the public at large. So again, where’s the beef? We’ve enjoyed six solid years of Islamicist demonization — and it’s still not playing in Peroria, is it?

So, relatively speaking, you think it’s more important for movies to convey that which armies of ‘thinkers’ like Fumento puke out every day? Or that the producers at FOX spin silly? Or the psychotic reactions of this administration? Somehow movies are the key to the people’s minds in the ways that saturation isn’t?

Morally relative indeed.

And Fumento — fuckface — if you’re still reading, while the Towers falling was for many of us who were there was as devestating a day as we’ll ever experience, why don’t you just admit it was the single best day of your life? That’s all you got, buddy. Fear. Hate. War. The only reason we’re at war is because of it. The only reason Bush is still president is still because of it. The only reason you have a ‘voice’ at all is because of it. It is the sum of your being. It’s how you approach art, it’s how you approach your thinking, it’s how you approach every day, filtered through its impact.

Wanna be a prick about how we ‘responded’ to being New Yorkers? Fine. Just live with the fact that 9/11 gave you meaning, and without it, you’d probably be beating up Mexicans instead. Shitheel.
Fumento actually has a very good point here. Terrorists are indeed classically, astoundingly evil, in terms that insulated westerners have trouble processing.

This is the kind of talking-out-of-one’s-ass that elevates any discussion of who Bruce Willis should pretend to shoot.
Jay. B.
Exactly.
You know what Bill, you’re right. That’s why a semi-literate, wholly-ignorant scumbag like Fumento should either write the fucking movie or shut the fuck up. 

1. Fumento is objectively literate, so I’m confused by your classification.

2. So now people like Fumento, and by extension, me, are not merely CHICKENHAWKS, but also CHICKENMOVIECRITICS?! 

Someone get Roger Ebert on the horn.

Not enough hateful Arabs in movies for your tastes?

That’s a loaded way to characterize any critique of the unrealistic depiction of terrorism in Hollywood. I’ve fought a tide of demonization of Muslims & Arabs from reactionary quarters on my blog for years now. 

That position is not inconsistent with noting that Hollywood goes to laughable lengths to avoid making references to the global jihad while cranking out lots of fiction involving terrorism. It’s silly.

to say nothing of TWO haigiographies of GW’s amazing response to the attacks,

Bob Woodward’s books (which I assume you mean), whatever you think of them, are not a product of “Hollywood.” This shows that you’re scraping for examples here given the topic at hand.

and a slobbering celebration of FIVE YEARS of torture fantasies in 24. Plenty of bad Islamicists there, don’t you think.

I was actually struck by the plots laying trouble at the feet of “war for oil” and false flag terrorism in 24, myself. Though your point about the show overselling the utility of torture is probably correct.

And hell, we’ve had six straight years of fear-soaked media blathering about how they’re planning something big, how we’ve offed yet another #2 in Al Queda, the WoT and what not. The amount of fiction contained in these Pentagon Morality plays that air on CNN and FOX, reach the level of pure propaganda that has proven deicisively unpopular by the public at large. So again, where’s the beef? We’ve enjoyed six solid years of Islamicist demonization — and it’s still not playing in Peroria, is it?

Again, this is news coverage, noy Hollywood. 

But addressing your point, I’m not sure how bombings in London, Bali, Madrid, attempted in London (not to mention Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Beslan) again constitute some media conspiracy to prop up George Bush. 

Sure, the media is open to criticism, has a reactionary herd mentality, uses thin speculation to fuel a 24-hour news cycle and beats stories into the ground – none of this means that if you personally close your eyes, terrorism is not nor has been an important issue rightfully garnering plenty of international coverage.

This is the world we live in, brother.

So, relatively speaking, you think it’s more important for movies to convey that which armies of ‘thinkers’ like Fumento puke out every day? Or that the producers at FOX spin silly? Or the psychotic reactions of this administration? Somehow movies are the key to the people’s minds in the ways that saturation isn’t?

No, I merely believe that Hollywood’s conscious scrubbing of purple elephant in the room is insulting to my intelligence. And in cases like Comedy Central censoring South Park’s brief depiction of Mohommed, cowardly.

BTW, your comments would be more effective if you cut back on the furious profanity.
This is the kind of talking-out-of-one’s-ass that elevates any discussion of who Bruce Willis should pretend to shoot. 

Did you visit the links? Does it help my credibility that I’ve spoken to a man whose young son was lit on fire, or another man whose uncle had acid poured on his face before he was shot multiple times, finally left with a note stabbed to his chest? Or that I’ve seen an 8 year-old boy who was paid to shoot at marines on a suicide mission?

None of that may be difficult for you to process, but it was for me, as an insulated westerner who was raised in the safety of the US. I ask myself how people can be capable of such violence, and the answers do not come easy. The only conclusion I’m sure of is that some people are indeed “evil.”

Some of you guys really need to take a look at the anger and prejudgments you’re pouring out into politics. It’s possible to disagree with people and not swear at them, demonize them, or weirdly invalidate anything and everything they say.
Take it easy.
Did you visit the links? Does it help my credibility 

No and no. What I was responding to was this:

Fumento actually has a very good point here. Terrorists are indeed classically, astoundingly evil, in terms that insulated westerners have trouble processing.

I’m sure there’s an extent to which you think such a paragraph has truth-value and meaning, but pointing out that terrorists – who have the word “terror” in their name if I read it correctly – are evil made me laugh. There’s more in that there paragraph that wants desillification or erasure, but why bother.

Take it easy.

Keep your bedsprings from rusting.
Bill,
I’ll see your moral relativism, and raise you the two white terrorists who burned down an abortion clinic on July 4th.

Where’s your messiah now, beeyatch?
Bill, seriously. You embarrassing yourself with your pseudo-intellectual tripe. It’s clear from your postings and from reading the links you posted that Jay’s comments about Fumento also apply to you.
Amazing. One man’s terrorist is another man’s crusader, and yet moral relativism is, um, wrong?

Understanding why things happen is not a bad thing, Billy. It’s the entire basis of Western thought, with the recent exception of the Republican party, who seem to want to pray problems go away.
“It’s possible to disagree with people and not swear at them, demonize them, or weirdly invalidate anything and everything they say.”

OK, now I’m busting that long-awaited gut admirably held in check since the fall of the Twin Towers, given the seven posts Bill devoted to defending that addlepated, cinematic authoritarian after his toxic comment.
Ortho_Bob:
It isn’t the glory days of the 1940s that the Fumentos want Hollywood to return to; it’s the glory days of the 1980s and films like Rambo and Red Dawn, which are the only examples of True American Art the Fumentos of this world will admit.
Red Dawn
Okay, this could be re-made with the Muslim hordes parachuting into town and the aghast townspeople looking up into the ballooning robes of their soon-to-be oppressors.

Ooh, people do bad things to each other. It’s a shocker, I know. Historically, human beings have never spent a significant amount of time conjuring up new cruel, vicious, inhuman ways to mutilate other humans to death. Pay no attention to those pesky history books, ‘cos that shit did not happen!!

[what the fuck is so "new" about "terrorism?"]
1. Fumento is objectively literate, so I’m confused by your classification.2. So now people like Fumento, and by extension, me, are not merely CHICKENHAWKS, but also CHICKENMOVIECRITICS?!

I said neither. But this is the game, see. It’s called the free market. If you don’t like the product, do it better. If it’s criticism, fine. But when the desire is not to judge the qualities of the movie, but the message it needs to convey to be thought of as ‘appropriate’ or ‘morally correct’, then make the damn thing. And at any rate, Ebert has Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, so he has my lifelong support.

That position is not inconsistent with noting that Hollywood goes to laughable lengths to avoid making references to the global jihad while cranking out lots of fiction involving terrorism. It’s silly.

And they made scores of movies during the Hayes Code about sex without showing or explicitly referring to it. I think people can get the gist. Besides, your premise is false. You said I was “scraping for examples here given the topic at hand” the last few years, we’ve had MunichSyrianaUnited 93Path to 9/11 (one of the aforementioned haiographies — not Bob Woodward’s books. It was produced by ABC, maybe you’ve heard of them — the other one was “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis” which was produced by a tiny indie company called Viacom — but yeah, I’m scraping because you don’t know about something), Paradise Now (a movie about suicide bombers) and A Mighty Heart(about the Daniel Pearl murder) among others that deal, explicitly, with terrorism and the nature of the jihad.

That you might not like their portrayal, or that they don’t show crazy/sinister Arabs likeRules of Engagement or True Lies or Black Sunday, all of which had the dastardly Arab evil you want or whatever. But you can’t say they don’t address the EXACT THING you’re talking about.

Again, this is news coverage, noy Hollywood.
But addressing your point, I’m not sure how bombings in London, Bali, Madrid, attempted in London (not to mention Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Beslan) again constitute some media conspiracy to prop up George Bush.

You’re conflating actual events with propaganda like the Bushies use of “Al Queda” when talking about people killed in Iraq by US Soliders. The media passes along such claims, even though there is ZERO proof. Previously, these people were at least Iraqi insurgents. But then this would go into the whole “what is a terrorist” debate — one you claim to fight on your blog. The actual number of die hard evil Arab terrorists, as opposed to the Arab people at large, is vanishingly small. Why do you think Hollywood should overrepresent this?

No, I merely believe that Hollywood’s conscious scrubbing of purple elephant in the room is insulting to my intelligence.

Funny, since Hollywood hasn’t gotten many gay relationships right — and a lot of people in Hollywood are gay — you strive for accuracy on the global terrorism movement. Moreover, its doubly funny when you say this: And in cases like Comedy Central censoring South Park’s brief depiction of Mohommed, cowardly
Then you say this:BTW, your comments would be more effective if you cut back on the furious profanity.

So, to sum up your brilliant insight — the Comedy Channel is cowardly for their lack of profanity (by profaning something sacred to a billion people), but that because I’m profane because some asshole said “I probably busted a gut watching the Towers fall”, I’m not as effective.

To sum up your point: You’d prefer a bit more civility in your give and take, but the fucking Towelheads with their reverent embrace of their prophet shouldn’t be so sensitive.

Makes sense.
You’d prefer a bit more civility in your give and take, but the fucking Towelheads with their reverent embrace of their prophet shouldn’t be so sensitive.
Left by Jay B.

How morally relative, huh?
Norbiz, that’s cheating, holding him to a standard!
Hey, Billy-boy, this Fumento asshole said that we laughed when the Twin Towers fell. He’s a shitheel for saying so, and you’re a shitheel for defending him. Do you understand that, or do I need to use smaller words?
Admittedly, Nick J, I did chuckle a little when I had to pick a piece of charred flesh off the shoulder of a passerby…or maybe that was gagging…
Hollywood goes to laughable lengths to avoid making references to the global jihad 

Aw, now you’ve gone and waked the sleeping giant English teacher:
Interesting. Your use of “the” in front of “global jihad” presumes that there is a single, unique “global jihad” that the average reader would immediately be able to identify without further context. 

If you provide some evidence for this global jihad instead of treating it as a “given”, your actual point about Hollywood ignoring would have some chance at validity. 

And the “don’t use profanity if you want your argument to be taken seriously” comment? Yeah, that same logic applies to “tell your audience they laughed at the deaths of 3000 people”, also. That’s a pretty profane statement, and it’s not one that can be easily dismissed. Honestly, the only appropriate response to that kind of argument is “Fuck off, asshole.”

So you see, the posters here are in fact giving Fumento’s argument all the consideration it deserves. If he wants to “engage people seriously”, he should stop being an asshole. Then, maybe, people will stop telling him to fuck off.
Dorothy, I think that I may have a substantial crush on you.
Possibly.
Wouldn’t want to be too “forward,” after all.
But you rawk.
I haven’t seen this place infested this badly by trolls in YEEEARS — Scott, honey, you know how to stir-up a hornet’s nest of dumbfucks, don’tcha darlin’.
Sorry that I haven’t been any help, but damn, if it doesn’t make for lovely bloodsport.
(Speaking as to the decapitation/mutilation/generally excellent bitch-slapping of the trolls, in re: bloodsport, not the lives lost on 9/11 or the even more lives that were permanently damaged in surviving it.)
Nitpick: It was “Coal Black an’ de Sebben Swarves”. I’ve actually seen it, at an offbeat-animation festival some three decades ago. Amazingly, Google found only one item, with a typo, on “Sebben Swarves” input.
God damn, but those are some good smackdowns. And, to repeat what several others have said (namely Roy at alicublog, who sent me here): It’s called the free market. If Hollywood isn’t making anti-Muslim, AllHailBush’sGreatWarOnTerror movies, it’s because the executives *don’t think they’ll be profitable.* Want to prove them wrong? Give Richard Mellon Scaife or “Reverend” Sun Myung Moon a call. I’m sure they’d be happy to fund your movie. You’ll probably only need $30-50 million dollars. (I’d tell you that the movie will also need to be *good* to make its money back, but I think I’d be wasting my breath.)
Clearly, I should visit this website more often.
Trust me folks, there’s a reason even the folks at Winds of Change had to kick Fumento to the curb.
The guy is not only nuts, but egomaniacal.
None of that may be difficult for you to process, but it was for me, as an insulated westerner who was raised in the safety of the US. I ask myself how people can be capable of such violence, and the answers do not come easy. The only conclusion I’m sure of is that some people are indeed “evil.”

Man, I’m sure glad I’m all sheltered in this safe and benevolent wonderland we callAmerica, where senseless and random acts of violence and terror never, ever occur.

It must be so easy, intellectually, to live in a world where anyone who opposes you can be defined as classic examples of pure and illogical evil.
What are these “countless movies” he’s talking about? The only Hollywood movies of 1942 about WW2 I can only think of are Casablanca and the Donald Duck short, “Der Fuhrer’s Face”.

The only other one that comes to mind is Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be, which having been released in early ’42, must have been in production prior to Pearl Harbour. Besides that one and Chaplin’s The Great Dictator from 1940, Hollywood didn’t give a good goddamn about the war until the US entered it.
“What are these “countless movies” he’s talking about? The only Hollywood movies of 1942 about WW2 I can only think of are Casablanca and the Donald Duck short, “Der Fuhrer’s Face”.”

The inconcievable asshole is actually right about that little detail. Hollywood produced scads of movies about our glorious armed forces smiting the perfidious Nips. Nobody remembers 99 percent of them because they were terrible and progandistic. I’ve seen a few, like “Mary Jane,” about a bomber, that had some pretty good scenes of bombing the Japaneese fleet, although these guys in their B-17 hit more carriers than the Japanese actually had at the Battle of the Coral Sea. I assume these are the movies Fumento wants made.

I believe workign on these movies was St. Ronnie’s job during the war.
The funniest shit is that as part of the proganda offensive we made movies like “Storm Over Lenningrad” exatling our most excellent allies, whose makers were later denounced as commie bastards when times abruptly changed.
Were those films made in 1942, though?

The war prompted some interesting ones as well, such as the 1943 Hangmen Also Die, concerning the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, and its aftermath, but I don’t think Fumento would dare mention it. It was co-written by Brecht and directed by Fritz Lang, not to mention that Heydrich’s character may be a bit too reminiscent of some of Fumento’s idols.
hate to contradict David, but I, too, have seen the fabulously racist “Coal Black an’ de Sebben Dwarves,” about four times (it used to be a staple of Jim Engel and Chuck [I wanna say "Filia," but that seems wrong. a quick and dirty Googling suggests maybe "Charles A. Filius" might be who I'm thinking of here]‘s animation shows in 16mm at late ’70s Chicago Comicons). Su, there – Dwarves, bitches!
S’oh!
I kick Michael Fumento’s ass.
[...] After I blogged on the utter lack of anti-Islamist terrorist movies, the aptly-named “World o’ Crap” blog accused me of being a racist for pointing out that the good guy FBI deputy director in the latest Die Hard movie looked Arabic (presumably to reinforce that this was not an anti-Islamist movie) and noted the actor is from New Zealand. But: 1. How my saying he looked Arabic has anything to do with racism is unexplained. 2. Arabs are Caucasian. That’s my race. 3. The actor is an aborigine descendant, hence his dark skin. He actually PLAYED an Arab in the movie Three Kings. Anti-antiterrorism is alive and well in both Hollywood and the blogosphere. [...]

9 comments:

Fearguth said...

Inasmuch as we're recycling here, on September 16, 2006, I captioned the Fumento bodybuilder pic thusly:
"Michael Fumento has confirmed he will be playing the starring
role in War of the Colossal Beast 2: Speedo's Revenge."

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Fast-forward to today, and Michael Fumento's friends are fiendishly seizing on BENGHAZI! to create false narratives.

USA! USA!, eh, Fumento?
~

Anonymous said...

Michael fumento is an abuser. He brutalized his ex-wife. Some of us will never forget. Every time his name is posted, we post this information so he can never hide from his deeds.

KWillow said...

Mr Fumento forgot to point out how successful Hitler was in demonizing certain minorities, how well it worked to bring the Germans together. Why there was even a (yucky) Star Trek episode about it.

Anonymous said...

My eyes read Fumento but my brain say fumunda. All together every one and say...."EWWWWW."
Gappy

grouchomarxist said...

I've been saying this about people like Fumento since shortly after 9/11/2001: they're playing "Greatest Generation" dress-up.

What kind of pathetic little putz do you have to be, to long for a world war to give your existence some meaning?

Weird Dave said...

I really hope that lead picture is some kind of joke.

Happenstance said...

It didn't come up in the original discussion, but one of my favorite Hollywood humiliations of the '40s is First Yank Into Tokyo, about a red-blooded, white-skinned and blue-balled all-American solja-boi who has plastic surgery to allow him to infiltrate the slant-eyed snaggletoothed rapists; (SPOILER) because the surgery is irreversible, Our Hero Revealed deliberately remains in hostile territory because he knows he "can never go back looking like a Jap."

One can only imagine what the 442nd Regimental Combat Team felt about shit like this; the highly-decorated squad of Japanese-Americans wouldn't get their movie until the '50s (Go For Broke!).

Stacia said...

reduced to movie reviews

SON OF A