Perhaps Hollywood Was Just Virtue Signaling And Grandstanding On The “Inclusion Rider.” If So, Good.

Apparently there is some disappointment among social justice warriors that the much ballyhooed “inclusion rider,” promoted by actress Frances McDormand in her 2018 Oscar acceptance speech, has not taken the city by storm despite abundant lip service from the Tinsel Town “woke.”  What a surprise: a business that either thrives or falls on the quality and popularity of its product chooses to make artistic decisions based on talent and merit rather than tribal quotas.

The “inclusion rider,” in its most literal form, is essentially a pledge to engage in discrimination, and to subjugate the purpose of art to “diversity” goals. All one has to do is observe the practices of “inclusion” advocates like Ava DuVernay,  currently embroiled in controversy over her racially slanted portrayal  of the Central Park Five story in her series, “When They See Us. She has vowed to hire only female directors for her series “Queen Sugar.” And how is refusing to hire an entire gender for a project “inclusion”? Well, one has to comprehend the tortured logic of the Diversity Nazis to answer that question.

Diversity for diversity’s sake has always been intellectually dishonest, spurred by unproven slogans based on nothing but wishes, like “Diversity makes us stronger.” What makes any organization, project or group stronger is smart, motivated, ambitious and ethical people, and their color, creed, gender and sexual practices don’t matter. This seems self-evident, but among the destructive false constructs that have been injected into the culture over the last several decades, the diversity myth has had unusual staying power, somehow remaining airborne without any visible means of elevation, like, say, data and common sense.

I don’t think it necessarily hurts the effectiveness of all the TV shows in which the casts now resemble cookie-cutter U.N. delegations  for no rhyme or reason, but I do often wonder how many superior performers lost out on a part because they didn’t help meet a quota since they happened to be white, male, abled, or prone to have sex with the opposite gender.

My favorite example of batty diversity to the detriment of a project is an old one, the absurd casting of a very black African American juvenile actress as very white, very Jewish Jeff Goldblum’s ‘tween daughter in  1997’s “The Lost World,” the first “Jurassic Park” sequel. It can only be explained by Spielberg being alerted that his only black actors in the movie were briefly on screen to be eaten by Velociraptors while they screamed like Steppin Fetchit, so he decided to go bold and make an obviously perverse non-traditional casting decision so everyone knew he was all in for diversity.

The young actress, who is fine in the role despite an impossible assignment, pulls the audience out of the movie every time she appears. In no universe  with functioning DNA would the Goldblum character father a daughter who looked like that. (Various characters comment on this, as if by acknowledging the stunt Spielberg thinks he is excused for it.)The stunt hurt the film, and diversity casting that hurts a film, like diversity hiring that weakens a staff, is irresponsible—unethical.

Trying to legally force directors–or any management—to hire for reasons other than demonstrable ability is similarly unethical, if arguably well-intentioned. “People in the industry get nervous about anything that limits their ability to have the freedom of choice to hire who they want to hire,” one director told the Times. Imagine that! The cruel bigots!

“Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding, ” said Clarence Darrow in his opening statement in the Scopes Trial. “Always they are feeding and gloating for more!” Thus  in addition to the Good Tribes pushing for the “inclusion rider” to benefit their members,  something called “the ReFrame Stamp” was created by the group Women in Film Los Angeles and the Sundance Institute. An algorithm  awards points for film and television productions with women in key on- and offscreen jobs, and extra points for women of color. If a production qualifies, it gets permission to use a logo that can be added to a production’s end credits. The logo literally means “This production discriminated the right way. Praise it.”

Who decides that they enjoy a movie based on how diverse the cast is?

As Justice Roberts once noted, the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to find new and woke ways to discriminate differently. At some point, members of the groups that are systematically excluded by the “inclusion rider” and other devices will stop being compliant and submissive in their own marginalization. They will be right to do so, and the sooner the better.

11 thoughts on “Perhaps Hollywood Was Just Virtue Signaling And Grandstanding On The “Inclusion Rider.” If So, Good.

  1. When talking about diversity in film, I keep going back to that shit-show “Fant4stic” in which people were genuinely excited to have Michael B Jordan take on the role of Johnny Storm.

    The narrative was that certain people did not like the ethnicity swap. I thought it was a great idea. Heck, I like Idris Elba for James Bond and Bruce Wayne. I’d watch him in those roles all day long. With Fant4stic, what really bothered me was they made this bold move…and then they undercut it. “Well, we can’t have Johnny’s sister Sue Storm be black too – we have to cast Kate Mara.” Here you have a pair of established characters that have a significant brother / sister, platonic relationship where they can anticipate each other so well and bicker in a comedic way – and you throw those character dynamics right out the window and make her a white child adopted into a black family because you don’t want to make Sue black as well….because….an interracial relationship with a white Reed Richards would be problematic? Ugh…I think I’m ranting….

    My point is… Everyone piled onto Michael B Jordan in that fiasco because he was the one in the ethnicity swap role, but he was the first one cast and the film was pretty much built around him taking that role. No one ever took the step back to look at Kate Mara and ask the obvious question.

    • As I’ve explained here before, as a director I’m a fan of non-traditional casting when it opens up the work and adds, rather than subtracts something, or allows an outstanding performer to take a role. Superheroes can be any color; I love the idea of Elba as Bond, though he’s too old now. Black Batman? Sure. But if Johnny Storm is black, Sue has to be too. Duh.

      A black Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof,” however, or a “diverse” Anatevka, is a terrible idea.

  2. At some point, members of the groups that are systematically excluded by the “inclusion rider” and other devices will stop being compliant and submissive in their own marginalization. They will be right to do so, and the sooner the better.

    We are already getting there… the MSM calls it ‘white supremacy.’ You are not allowed to be proud if you are white: that is racism and bigotry. This reaction from the left only drives more into the fold, where non-favored groups are realizing that they can never be good enough, never express enough ‘white guilt,’ and therefore never win. The trope ‘…then let me be evil’ then begins to apply.

    I only hope this stops short of blood in the streets.

    • I was raised for guilt as a self-control thing, but guilt for existing is nuts. I can’t believe they all feel that much guilt, but it’s lip service, like the woke actress proudly taking a part more well respected as an african-american role and lecturing how special her awareness and girl-power is…

    • “Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me:
      There lie they, and here lie we
      Under the spreading chestnut tree.”


      We are already getting there… the MSM calls it ‘white supremacy.’ You are not allowed to be proud if you are white: that is racism and bigotry. This reaction from the left only drives more into the fold, where non-favored groups are realizing that they can never be good enough, never express enough ‘white guilt,’ and therefore never win. The trope ‘…then let me be evil’ then begins to apply.

      But … you are not supposed to ‘win’. There was never a way to *win*. Even if it might have been presented as such and as ‘fairness’. The purpose of these poisonous narratives is to condition you for losing, and to bring you into loss. These narratives were concocted — spun — and put in motion at a specific time and for specific reasons. From what I have been able to tell just after WW2. In fact, the animus or the spirit of the anti-white/ anti-European narrative has been said to be related to a universal reaction against European fascism, Germany and Germanism.

      Jonathan Bowden wrote of this:

      It’s interesting that it’s so acute in a Protestant society, like the contemporary United States, but maybe it’s [‘it’ being a semi-religious self-hatred, or self-hatred as a metaphysical necessity] been concretized in that society, but it exists elsewhere, everywhere. It exists in the minds of the people who defeated Germany. They are responsible as well. It’s left national borders and it’s become sort of cosmic, and it’s what I call the cloud: It’s the cloud that appears: the cloud of knowing rather than unknowing … And it falls upon virtually all Caucasians and to a certain extent certain other groups just outside us like a pall. It falls upon us like a miasma, like a sort of moral hectoring and semi-plague. It’s only when it’s corrosively dealt with that we will revive, because if we remain beholden to this . . .

      I have begun to see how strange and impossible this must seem to many conventional Americans & Europeans. They do not grasp the origin and the root of their destructive self-hatred and cannot identify the *poison* that is channeled into their blood.

      I guess it follows that after one had said ‘let me be evil’ that, after some time, one would begin to reclaim ‘being good’, and then one’s notion of oneself, one’s belief in oneself, in one’s community, in one’s creations, in one’s doings & actions, would no longer be understood to be ‘evil’ but really as good. And then, against those who try to say differently, to see their *narratives* as wrong and bad (I won’t say ‘evil’). We notice that the Left is full of condemnations and accusations, but then we also notice that they embody what they condemn. They ‘project’.

      If you examine the main figures of the dissident American Right you will find that they have (long ago) crossed over from the land of being called evil, its interiorization, to the land of self-understanding, self-acceptance and self-esteem. For example Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer. I don’t wish to create a psychic earthquake but add to those names that of David Duke who I now see as a bone fide patriot (despite some differences with him).

      Now, after having gotten through 3/4ths of The Dispossessed Majority I can say that I understand, in a way I did not before, ‘where they are coming from’.

      The ‘progressive left’ more or less assumed, in the course of 50 years of Postwar activism, and of taking over the institutions, that their success was assured, a given. But back then, even 50-60 years ago, what they were up to was understood and noted by some. They wrote prophetic denunciations that could not have much reach or audience then, but their ideas lay dormant.

      Now, as the ‘Left’ has become systemic and ‘nationalized’ as well as corporalized — it is Americanism in many ways though it is painful for some Americans to hear this! — it assumed it had all the necessary control mechanisms. In fact it still does. And it is exceedingly dangerous and capable de tout.

      How odd: it has taken me about 5 years of plodding work to understand what I now understand, to see what I now clearly see. I cannot believe that ‘deconstruction’ of interwoven lies and deception takes so long to unravel.

  3. This will only stop when those benefitting from inculsion become part of the excluded group. Ultimately, each tribe will see another tribe as a threat to their power.

    Nothing motivates people more than the threat of losing their ability to make the rules.

    Anyone that claims diversity makes us stronger has never seen the politics at play in a college faculty meeting. That is why college operations are highly inefficient. It is not that diversity makes them stronger it is the alliances they form to destroy their opposition.

  4. Diversity does make you stronger, but it’s not diversity of appearances that make you stronger, it’s diversity of experiences and diversity of knowledge and diversity of thought. Diversity of appearances can help with perceptions and expectations, but it’s a very superficial benefit.

    • I’ve worked at a couple of colleges. Invariably, there were at least two people (not necessarily men) who wore bow ties. Now THAT’S diversity.

    • In the theoretical world of diversity you are correct. The concept that each brings a unique best characteristic or idea to the group that everyone embraces without question does not occur anytime competitive pressures exist. Unfortunately, humans inputs cannot be controlled like other non-human factors.

      I am willing to accept the concept so long as we agree that the total benefit curve associated with diversity mimics the total product curve in which output grows with increasing returns then as more diverse inputs are added the benefits diminish and then eventually decline.

      Adding humans to any equation will eventually cause it to turn negative.

  5. Maybe I’m the only one who remembers Crichton’s “Lost World” novel… The casting decision was based on the fact that in the book the young girl was African American (I may be remembering that wrong, but one of the two stowaway kids on the mission was). What the movie added, however, was that she was somehow Malcolm’s daughter; in the book the two kids were just interested in science and hung out with Ian. That movie was the biggest disappointment ever! The book was probably not as good as the original, but it was very good. I almost always like a book better than its movie, but these two should not have been allowed to share the same title. I agree with your premise, but this was an unfortunate example to use due to its complete failure to miss the mark on pretty much everything.

    • I remember the African-American character, but that aspect of the plot, like virtually the whole book, was jettisoned for the screenplay. After all, Ian Malcolm, Goldblum’s character, was killed in the original novel. So without a justification artistically to have an African-American girl in the movie, Spielberg just magically made Ian’s daughter one, sacrificing logic and audience acceptance in the name of woke casting. (We know there was going to be child stowaway, because Spielberg has to have a kid to imperil in 90% of his films, and its a theme of the Jurassic Park line, with prominent child protagonists in all five films to date.

      It all could have been avoided if they had the foresight to make one of the main characters black in the original film, instead of giving the token role of raptor bait to a young Samuel L. Jackson, whose dialogue pretty much consisted of multiple repetitions of “Hold on to your butts!”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.