Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Elysium Reviewed

A liberal critic might see this illustration as having a
liberal message.  I don't.
I haven't seen Elysium yet, but I saw District 9South African Neill Blomkamp's earlier movie. The conventional wisdom is that the latter is an anti-apartheid movie, because what other kind of movie could a South African possibly make?  I mean, any South African so evil and stupid as to not be anti-apartheid would be too evil and stupid to make a movie, right?

Well, the fact of the matter is that District 9 was nothing of the kind.  I probably wouldn't have bothered to see it, except that Steve Sailer saw it, and did a review exposing its real nature.  Actually, the movie isn't all that subtle, and you have to really strain to see an anti-apartheid message in it. More than strain.  You have to fool yourself.

And it's evidently happening again, and Steve Sailer knows it and now I know it and now you know it, but let's keep it between ourselves, okay?  At least until all the liberals have paid good money to see a right-wing movie that they think is a left-wing movie.  Steve writes:

Elysium: Neill Blomkamp Fools the Critics Again

The new movie Elysium, another science-fiction fable from young Boer refugee Neill Blomkamp about the horrors of mass immigration and nonwhite overpopulation, isn’t terribly amusing to watch. But at the meta level, the career of Blomkamp, whose mother dragged the family off from Johannesburg to Vancouver after a 17-year-old friend was shot dead by black carjackers, is one of the funnier pranks played on the American culturati’s hive mind in recent decades.

I’ve read over a hundred reviews of Blomkamp’s two movies, and virtually no critic has noticed that he does not share their worldview.

Not at all.

Blomkamp’s 2009 Best Picture-nominated District 9, in which the black residents of his native Johannesburg demand that their black-run government clear out millions of feckless illegal space aliens, was universally praised by American critics as an apartheid allegory. Yet Blomkamp has relentlessly insisted in interviews that it’s really about “the collapse of Zimbabwe and the flood of illegal immigrants into South Africa, and then how you have impoverished black South Africans in conflict with the immigrants.”

Similarly, Elysium is another Malthusian tale about open borders, set in a dystopian 2154. By then, Los Angeles has been completely overrun by Mexicans, who have turned it into an endless, dusty slum that looks remarkably like urban Mexico today. (Blomkamp filmed for four months in Mexico City.)

The auteur explains that he is:

…painting this realistic image of a future Earth…which meant the borders being erased entirely and having this fluid population group that basically moves from Chile all the way up to Canada. It just flows, because it can.…The numbers of people that are Latin are going to overwhelm the numbers of people that aren’t.

The rich, continuing to get richer from the collapse of the borders, have decamped for a gated community in the sky, recreating Beverly Hills in a delicate space station that rotates gently to produce gravity along its inner rim.

Blomkamp, a gun-loving Afrikaner whose movies are based around his fear that the rapid breeding of Third Worlders threatens to bring down civilization, says Elysium originated in a disastrous visit to Mexico in 2005. While shooting a Nike commercial in lovely San Diego, the Boer crossed the border one evening to see Tijuana, where he was abducted by corrupt Mexican cops who shook him down for $900 in return for not killing him.

Despite the obviousness of Blomkamp’s parable about Mexican immigration’s catastrophic effects, Elysium has been universally interpreted as preaching the need for amnesty, open borders, and Obamacare.  (Read the rest HERE.)


  1. The Romans thought that the barbarian tribes would bring an end to civilization but it worked out ok.

  2. I saw District 9. How anyone can think it was anti-apartheid, with its portrayal of those psycho Nigerians, is beyond me.