Short Movie Break – Africa Addio

Google video has surprisingly uploaded one of the most beautiful, powerful, extremely RACIST movies ever made – the documentary Africa Addio.

You can see the entire uncut version (click here for direct link) – be prepared for lots of Black African savagery, cruelty to animals, but lots of inspiring, brave actions by small numbers of Whites keeping a stiff upper lip in the worst of times in Black Africa.

The Dark Continent Goes Back to Black

Here are excerpts from a great review by “The Duke”:

“Europe was about to retreat from Africa. The continent which stood as a British colony for centuries was, in part, being reluctantly handed back to the African people.

(Directors) Jacopetti and Prosperi grabbed the cameras, and spent three years documenting this period of violent dissent and cultural upheaval.

The filmmakers have since asserted that the intention was to attack the British and European colonists for leaving Africa at such a crucially unstable moment in its history. The film, though, taken purely on its own terms, regardless of the intentions, serves as perhaps the most offensively pro-colonialist document ever produced…

I would not for a second attempt to convince anyone of the moral worth of the film, simply because, barring the admirable stance on game-hunting, it is at best woefully misguided, and at worst, gleefully and abhorrently delighting in its racism.

I stand by my assertion that Africa Addio is a masterpiece, and among the greatest films ever made, but I also stand by my assertion that it is morally disgusting, despicably racist and consistently reprehensible.”

Reviewed by “the Duke”

http://blogcritics.org/video/article/the-duke-on-africa-addio/

30 Comments

  1. Jack,

    You have an uncanny sense of timing.

    I was just searching Google trying to remember the name of this film. That post by Whites Forward in the Why Vanguardists Can’t Win thread about ripping his own grandparents limb from limb sounded like something straight out of Africa Addio.

  2. Thanks Hunter, glad you liked my link to Africa Addio.
    I also must say that yours is the first nice thing anyone has said about any of my posts in a long, long time.
    🙂

  3. Spooky says:
    December 12, 2010 at 12:32 am
    That was one hell of a disturbing film. I don’t even know what to think.

    Jack Ryan replies:

    Low life, Black N*$&@$ everywhere are very “disturbing” – personal encounters with these types are the best way to educate White folks about racial realities.

  4. Filo Critic Roger Ebert gave this great racist movie a very negative review – not surprising as he gave one of the worst Jew movies in the last ten years David Cronenberg’s “Crash” a positive review.

    Africa Addio
    By Roger Ebert / April 25, 1967

    “Africa Addio” is a brutal, dishonest, racist film. It slanders a continent and at the same time diminishes the human spirit. And it does so to entertain us.

    It claims to be a documentary of what has happened in Africa since colonialism ended. It shows us sadism and tells us we must not fear to see the truth — but the sadism itself has been staged for the cameras. It weeps for the slaughtered wild game of Africa — but who weeps for the game tortured before the cameras, and before our eyes?

    The film begins with a scene familiar from a dozen newsreels: A British colonial governor boards a launch and is taken to an offshore ship. The Union Jack comes down, and a new flag is flown. Another colony is independent.

    But independence has come too soon, the narrator tells us. Africans are not ready for self-government. “Europe has abandoned her baby,” the narrator mourns, “just when it needs her the most.” Who has taken over, now that the colonialists have left? The advertising spells it out for us: “Raw, wild, brutal, modern-day savages!”

    I could hardly believe my ears. During a year in South Africa I only rarely heard such language, and then usually in bars. Yet here it was being presented as gospel truth in a supposedly reputable documentary.

    One would not, of course, object to a dispassionate study of Africa’s setbacks since independence. But one would expect an examination of its progress, as well. No hint of anything but disaster, however, is given in this film by the makers of “Mondo Cane.” As in their earlier “documentaries,” Jacopetti and Prosperi have combined a saccharine sound track, arty photography and an authoritative-sounding narration to lend respectability to a film offering perversion and brutality as its fare.

    If “Africa Addio” is to be believed, Africans have engaged in an orgy of bloodletting and pillage since the Europeans left. Some of the footage, notably aerial shots of the Arab massacre in Zanzibar, is doubtless truthful. But interior evidence in the film itself suggests that many of the scenes are phony.

    One dubious scene shows white Boers purportedly leaving Kenya in cattle-drawn wagons for the long trek back to the Cape. “A freedom march in reverse,” the narrator explains. “These Boers settled Kenya generations ago, but have been driven from their own country.”

    In fact, cattle-drawn wagons are no longer in general use in Africa, as Jacopetti and Prosperi undoubtedly knew. Real Boers (there are a few among the mostly British white population in Kenya) would probably call up a moving van for their furniture and then fly down to the Cape.

    Other scenes are equally preposterous. We are told that Africans, lacking modern weapons, surround an area the size of Rhode Island, 10,000 strong, and close in on the trapped game, Ha! We are told that the Zambesi River was plundered of thousands of hippos in 1963, to provide cheap food. In fact, the Zambesi was in white hands in 1963, and essentially still is. Nor does Rhodesia or Zambia consume a lot of hippo meat. None, in fact.

    Another suspicious scene shows “poachers” torturing an elephant to death. The early footage is shot at ground level. After we have seen enough suffering, the camera goes aloft and we are told it’s in a helicopter flown by game wardens. In fact, it’s the same helicopter used throughout the film. Was the scene staged, or did real poachers conveniently agree to star? It seems pretty clear that the elephant died for our entertainment. Later, we learn that it was pregnant.

    There are scenes even more odious, of executions, decomposed bodies, burning flesh, suffering and death. If only they were honestly presented, set in context, perhaps they could be justified. But they are not. Instead, they are staged for our amusement, cloaked in the respectability of an “impartial” documentary, and in the end that is the most disgusting thing about this wretched film.”

    Jack Ryan replies:
    OK, Roger, you get to keep your media job, you’re against “RACISM”, but think Black Africans doing genocide against Arab Muslims, White farm families, each other isn’t really as bad as some say. Well Roger, you’ve got Cancer now and can’t eat, maybe if you wrote honest reviews you wouldn’t be cursed.

  5. Those white guys “hunting” zebras with ropes and jeeps and hunting elephants with helicopters weren’t exactly shining specimens of humanity, either.

    My God the West is doomed. We have become a moral and ethical black hole.

    And when they came for the White Africans, I did nothing…

  6. Roger Ebert is married to a fat Black woman. Don’t know if he was when he wrote that review, but it would not be surprising.

  7. Roger Ebert is married to a fat Black woman. Don’t know if he was when he wrote that review, but it would not be surprising.

    Yes, that was a real shock when I first saw him and his wife.

    Film Critic Roger Ebert gave this great racist movie a very negative review – not surprising as he gave one of the worst Jew movies in the last ten years David Cronenberg’s “Crash” a positive review.

    I’ve seen bad “Art” films but that one took the cake. A group of car crash fetishists??? And the movie totally jumped the shark the minute some creepy guy bent over and offered up his butt to James Spader…and to my shock Spader took it!!!

  8. Africa Addio was profoundly, even naively, honest in its portrayal of the result of the humans abandoning Africa to the colonial beings. The murders of White Children in the Belgian Congo and baby animals by the newly freed blacks are quite distrubing. Ebert calls it dishonest because, in the Bizarro world of the worthless trash that are white liberals, being honest about politically correct topics is dishonest. These evil freaks believe their sick ideology/mental disorder over their own eyes.

  9. One would not, of course, object to a dispassionate study of Africa’s setbacks since independence. But one would expect an examination of its progress, as well. No hint of anything but disaster, however, is given in this film by the makers of “Mondo Cane.

    Therein lies the film’s value, because liberal assholes like Ebert would have you believe there has been nothing but progress in black societies ever since racism was declared immoral.

    At the end of the day, it’s all about influence. Will people (in general, of all races) be influenced to view the world through a pro-white perspective or a pro-black perspective.

    A pro-white perspective for whites simply means being pro-self. For blacks it means accepting that whites are going to put themselves first. A pro-black perspective for blacks means being pro-black. A pro-black perspective for whites means (eventually) caving in to every demand blacks make of them because blacks will always blame their problems on white racism.

    For non-whites and non-blacks, a pro-white perspective accepts that a hereditary component influences human behavior and sets limits on achievement; accepts and advocates that various human groups’ advances are their own responsibility; values standards, social order and “good taste” and is wary of transgressors; causes mixed individuals to recognize and place higher value on their white ancestry than the other; and encourages one to put one’s own group first. (This describes the world that existed up to the 60s.)

    For non-whites and non-blacks, a pro-black perspective means joining blacks in taking an antagonistic stance towards whites or blaming them for one’s problems; disvaluing white culture and “decent” cultural standards in general; blaming “society” for unfavorable individual human life outcomes (like criminality); praising and emulating care-free black attitudes; excusing and eventually succumbing to degenerate black cultural distortion, and reacting with outrage against efforts to ameliorate cultural decline in the same manner as blacks themselves; causes mixed individuals to disvalue their white ancestry; encourages putting other groups before one’s (or leads to encouraging others to put other group’s before their own, even if one remains reluctant to do so with his own group); permits ongoing immigration of foreigners (including the racially utterly unlike, typically meaning blacks) as a matter of principle.

    Finally, blacks are just a pack of worthless nigger animals who fuck up everything they touch and will destroy your way of life and eventually your entire racial existence. In the plainest possible language: fuck niggers.

  10. The film’s portrait of black behavior is reflected, and, more tragically, accepted, in mainstream America by way of rap music – in all its vulgarity and depravity.

  11. I hope, in the coming years, we will get to a point in this society where we can address black and brown antisocial behavior from a position of objectivity; they’re a minority in this country and yet a majority in almost every prison and jail. This fact alone should be call to scholarly study.

  12. Well, I think Ebert’s point was more about the “exploitative” and sensationalistic attitude that is undoubtedly in the movie, somewhat hypocritically concealed under the alibi of moral indignation. The Italian “mondo” movies, made before internet and when TV stations clinged to standards of decency relied heavily on ever-profitable shock value. Take the scenes with the animal slaughter… at one time the movie makes you feel bad about this useless, vain carnage, and you could interpretate it as some kind of “green” message, on the other side this was of course another way to feed the audience hungry for blood, bread and games. And Ebert is right to assume that this stuff WAS staged for the camera. That approach is even more problematic, when f.e. the mass murder of a Muslim minority is shown from a helicopter. It is chilling, but in a way to provide edgy chilling entertainment, that would sell well back then.

    Despite these rather questionable sides “Addio Africa”‘s documentary value on the other hand is great and revealing in many respects, and any idiot who thinks that Evil Whitey had to leave Africa to make it a pre-colonial paradise again should watch it. In that respect it is not “racist” at all, just, well, realist and telling you how things are without any liberal illusions. I guess it is rather that aspect, than the sensationalistic one, that the quoted reviewer The Duke thought to be “immoral”.

  13. Ebert is just responding in the only way that will allow him to keep his job, keep his place in respectable “liberal” society. Mainstream media people, mainstream academics, mainstream clergy can not come out and support anyone who presents racial truths about Black Africans or Black African Americans.
    As for the horrible atrocities supposedly being “staged” for this shock documentary – this falls in to the line of thought that whenever Blacks are shown to be savage, brutal murderers, cannibals, abusers of beautiful endangered species animals – the evil, exploitive White man somehow tricked them in to “acting” this negative stereotype way.
    You see that in the typical PC lib movie about the tribal genocide in Rwanda done by Hutu against Tutsi. The noble Black actors in this movie make speeches that “The World Just doesn’t care about these Black Africans and the rich (White) world could easily stop this, if “they just cared about poor Black Africans, but they don’t.”
    Has everyone read Respail’s Camp of the Saints? It’s brilliant on these subjects.

  14. Nightowl – I moved your full comment to the post on Football.

    The subject of this post/thread is the movie Africa Addio

  15. “As for the horrible atrocities supposedly being “staged” for this shock documentary –”

    I don’t think you understand what “being staged” means here. The animal hunts f.e. may have “really happened” this way, but in order to capture this on film and show it in the way the movie does it, you need a careful and planned set-up. You cannot just go by with your camera and “accidentally” film it. Same goes for certain atrocities being shown, like the shooting of executioners, as I think is shown in the film. You have to basically ask them to do it “for the camera”. I can tell that some scenes in “Addio Africa” were very likely made that way. Now, this can be justified from a filmmaker’s p.o.v. , but there is still a moral question left, I think. At least it makes these film’s supposed moral indignation seem dubious, and exploitation and Mondo movies used to heavily play on that.

  16. In the middle of all the horror, that one baby zebra rescue really stood out, lol. It was the best Lassie moment ever.

  17. Erik Nordman: You slander the Godfather of Soul. He was a slender man, as I recall.

    Ebert must have some awfully strange baggage to have married that woman.

  18. Finally, blacks are just a pack of worthless nigger animals who fuck up everything they touch and will destroy your way of life and eventually your entire racial existence. In the plainest possible language: fuck niggers.

    Wow Silver, and you come at me for being a nutjob radical? I would never post a comment like that. More importantly, I don’t actually feel that way.

    The only way to get me to feel like that is by backing me against the wall; making me choose between the destruction of my kind, and open hatred of the other. Which, I admit, the regime has done. But, I still don’t feel that way – yet.

    I feel sorry for blacks, really. Not their fault they are the way they are. At this point, I feel more animus toward the white regime forcing my back against the wall than I do against blacks.

    In short, who do you blame when an “upstanding member of the community” opens the prison gates and looses the murderers and rapists on the population?

    And Ebert is right to assume that this stuff WAS staged for the camera. That approach is even more problematic, when f.e. the mass murder of a Muslim minority is shown from a helicopter. It is chilling, but in a way to provide edgy chilling entertainment, that would sell well back then.

    Oh, please. 100% “who-whom?” mewling. If and when Ashkenazis and their fellow travelers pull a stunt like this, but in reverse, screwing over whites, the faux documentary will be “brilliant” and “edgy” and “must see.”

    I can tell that some scenes in “Addio Africa” were very likely made that way. Now, this can be justified from a filmmaker’s p.o.v. , but there is still a moral question left, I think.

    That people even wonder aloud if Africa Addio is a documentary or not is funny, and a tribute to the film’s artistry. [email protected] all the liberals who present the fact that it’s “fake” or “not a documentary,” as if they found the smoking gun. Hilarious.

    I’ve had this on DVD for years, I guess I should finally watch it at some point. I’ve only seen the first few minutes.

  19. When a creepy, white-hating Jew makes a living defaming whites via hostile edits (Borat), it’s “edgy” and “brilliant,” no doubt. But turn the tables and it’s “deception,” and doubleplusungood.

  20. “If and when Ashkenazis and their fellow travelers pull a stunt like this, but in reverse, screwing over whites, the faux documentary will be “brilliant” and “edgy” and “must see.””

    Maybe, but still Roger’s point would be valuable. And, now, please give me an example of a movie like this and reviews like this. I can’t think of any.

    “That people even wonder aloud if Africa Addio is a documentary or not is funny, and a tribute to the film’s artistry. [email protected] all the liberals who present the fact that it’s “fake” or “not a documentary,” as if they found the smoking gun. Hilarious.”

    Well, any documentary is “staged” to some degree. There is no such thing as pure unopiniated reality in the movies.

    I don’t doubt that the overall impression “Addio, Africa” gives is realistic. The point of “dishonesty” is all about the motives of the filmmakers and the degree of cynicism they were ready to get indulge in in order to achieve their shoots.

    “I’ve had this on DVD for years, I guess I should finally watch it at some point. I’ve only seen the first few minutes.”

    Cool, you could even have some ground to join the discussion then. 😉

Comments are closed.