Admissions Granted (2024): #ANTIBLACKNESS #SIFFTY

 

Produced and Directed by: Hao Wu (@beijingloafer), Miao Wang

Run Time: 90 Minutes

Rating: 0 Stars, The Worst of 17 Films Gus Saw @ SIFF2024

While the US Supreme Court was dismantling so-called “affirmative action” programs in higher education during the summer of 2023, Gus T. invited Dr. Jennifer L. Pierce to discuss her book: Racing For Innocence: Whiteness, Gender, and The Backlash Against Affirmative Action (2012). A White Woman/Suspected Racist and expert on both “affirmative action” and the System of White Supremacy, Dr. Pierce’s text exposes how dialog on this contested program reliably and deliberately misrepresents “black” people (especially “black” males) as “unqualified,” lazy applicants seeking unearned handouts at the expense of hardworking, scholarly Whites. Racing for Innocence details how decades of cinema and Supreme Court decisions suggest that because of “affirmative action,” “whites are disadvantaged vis-à-vis black Americans.”

The latest film in this White Supremacist tradition is the MSNBC documentary Admissions Granted (2024). Slated for mainstream release later this month, California’s VC Film Fest told moviegoers that “Admissions Granted takes an honest and thoughtful look at the complexity of the affirmative action debate.”

There’s little honest about Admissions Granted.

The documentary showcases a number of “asian” students with gaudy résumés and sincere frustrations about being rejected from the ivy palace that is Harvard. As they continued to suggest that there were specific efforts to exclude or hinder applicants classified as “asian,” I began to wonder what percentage of Harvard’s students are classified as “asian.” You’ll have finished your popcorn and watched nearly the entire film before you’re told (without graphics or fanfare) that 28% of the Cambridge scholars are “asian.”

The big lie is at the center of this film. This falsehood is so redundant, I expect it, and now, respond aggressively when any person mutters “affirmative action” to grouse about people classified as “black.” Dr. Pierce, a White Woman, stresses that the greatest beneficiaries of “affirmative action” are people like her. White chicks. This is not confidential or new information. Time magazine wrote about this in 2013. The Admitted White Supremacist known as Tim Wise penned an essay last century detailing White Women’s rejection of “affirmative action” in spite of the fact that they’re the primary beneficiaries of the program.

Filmmakers Hao Wu and Miao Wang know this. Audiences get more deceptive stalling and have nearly exited theaters before they’re told that White Women benefit most from so called "affirmative action." The fraudulence and cowardly filmmaking at the core of this project are laid bare with whom Wu and Miao chose to inform us about this.

Whoopi Goldberg.

Not Dr. Jennifer Pierce. Not an ivy league, critical race scholar. Not even a screenshot of that Time magazine report.

Whoopi Goldberg.

Wu, Wang and I were all present for the Seattle International Film Festival's May 13th screening of their film. During the subsequent Q & A, I asked why they chose this Lion King (1995) alumnus to share such a vital piece of information. Both filmmakers responded, saying that they wanted to pick someone that viewers would recognize. They also conceded that there are many aspects to the discussion of “affirmative action,” and they hoped the scene would encourage viewers to research more about who has benefited from this program.

Wu and Wang said what they said. Their documentary is dishonest and anti-black, and logic suggests they chose someone who worked as a comedian and is commonly thought of as a “negro" "jester” to minimize the import of the statement. Ms. Goldberg is not an academic scholar. This film has loads of prestigious-degreed students and faculty to give expert, respected opinion. Why would a five second soundbite of someone widely regarded as a “black” “clown” sway White (or non-white) opinions on this subject or even encourage them to investigate more closely?

I hoped this film would showcase many informed “asian” (non-white, non-black) people voicing their allegations of college admissions abuses and their views and frustrations about Racism in education. Many “asian” students and their parents get screen time to share a wealth of opinions. 

However, Admissions Granted is an ode to a White Man. Edward Blum.

Ward Connerly & Edward Blum

Blum has spent more than a quarter century court-clogging under the guise that “affirmative action” wrongs White people. Anyone suggesting people classified as White are somehow wounded by “affirmative action” is militantly dishonest and dedicated to White Supremacy. Blum is so refined in his practice, he’s concocted a code for showcasing his partnerships with non-white people. Decades before he met Wu and Wang, Blum teamed with “black” male Ward Connerly to scrap California’s "affirmative action" plan in higher education. Admissions Granted discusses how the elimination of California’s plan correlates with a substantial reduction in the number of “black” students in the California university system.

One glaring moment illustrates the cast and filmmakers’s overall contempt for "black" students in California and the universe.

But you have to watch a lot of Blum before you get to this part. We’re treated to Blum’s home life, career accolades, we meet his White Wife and even his hound. In contrast, "black” people are mostly shown gyrating and shouting at protests, denying their presumed welfare-ish and undeserving student status, or being called names by the filmmaker. In fact, Blum gets more screen time than all the other “asian” students, parents and faculty - who were supposed to be the center of this project. I wondered if MSNBC’s support or other funding sources for Admissions Granted were contingent on this White Man being a central component of the film. Perhaps there’s less interest for a documentary exclusively focused on genteel “asian” students’ flimsy claims of academic discrimination at Harvard.

We don’t meet Danielle R. Holley’s Dalmatians or goldfish. Classified as a “black" female, we don’t learn about Holley’s accomplishments at Harvard law school, if she met President Obama while there, or how White Supremacy/Racism hampered her pursuit of a law degree. However, Hao Wu chooses this moment to add his voice to the film. He brands then-dean of the School of Law at Howard University an “affirmative action baby.” In my technicolor dreams, Ms. Holley, the current President of Mount Holyoke College, channels the spirit of Howard alumnus Chadwick Boseman and buries a Black Panther fist in Wu’s esophagus, then has security roll him down Howard Hill.

This scene illustrates the cowardice and anti-blackness that's the bedrock for this film. Wu and Wang lack the backbone to track down Hillary Clinton, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, blond entertainment mogul Taylor Swift, or hoops phenom Caitlin Clark and publicly, correctly libel them as “affirmative action babes.” Wu didn’t raise a peep to challenge Blum in any of the scenes that made the final draft. But he finds his courageous voice to insult a “black" female and provide non-white narration to the Racist tropes of "unqualified" “black” people debunked by Dr. Pierce and many others for over a decade.

Back to that other anti-black moment in this project.

Jeff Wang is one of the “asian” students who felt aggrieved by the Harvard admissions process. He and his father, Michael, are given ample time to detail their nuanced perspective on the admissions process and “affirmative action.” When we first hear Wang’s cries of injustice, he’s sporting blond highlights. The film moves forward, with lots of Blum, and after what seems like years, Wang returns. Sans blond and well-rooted at the University of California at Berkeley, he and his “asian” pals fraternize and discuss the politics of Racism and college admissions. They briefly (nanosecond) lament the lack of “black” students on campus. Things aren’t perfect. Jeff Wang didn’t get into Harvard, but Berkeley is a world class consolation prize. Wang’s future's so bright, highlights are redundant. In their stead, seated girlfriend-ly close, a real life White Woman. With blond tips.

Blondness reigned throughout the conclusion of the film, into the Q & A period, and for the duration of the 50th annual SIFF. Admissions Granted closed with scenes of "black" people protesting in support of “affirmative action.” As the Supreme Court guts the program, a "black" female, who’s probably not going to Harvard or Berkeley, whales in despair while brandishing the US flag. Red, White, & blue frame her crown of blond locks and tears.

A few minutes after this scene, the film concluded, and the audience was allowed to ask questions. Someone I think would be classified as a “black” female shared that she really appreciated this film even though things don’t seem to be headed towards Justice. She had blond hair too.

Coloring hair isn’t criminal activity. However, what you do with your hair sends a message. And non-white people have been skillfully programmed (often with films) to poison and mutilate our bodies and minds in pursuit of White beauty standards. Standards most people classified as White flounder to achieve themselves. Non-white failure of standardized White beauty tests was a theme painfully reinforced throughout this international festival.

Admissions Granted features former C.O.W.S. guest and former Howard law professor Frank Wu. He wrote the book Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White (2002), which examines how “asian americans” have been victims of White Terrorism and their resistance. As the the term “yellow” applies to this film, it concerns the scaredy-cat filmmakers who were brave enough to confront the White man’s dog and mock a "black" female dean, but too chicken to examine White Women’s supremacy in “affirmative action.”

Wu & Wang didn’t want the White smoke with the Swifties.

** Dedicated to Akai Gurley, who did not take any Harvard slots from more qualified White or "asian" applicants.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Original Racism

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has simultaneously recalibrated talking points for the upcoming presidential election and intensified the importance of President Obama’s remaining months in the White House. Scalia reportedly died over the weekend while on a hunting trip in Texas. He occupied the highest bench for three decades since being nominated by President Ronald Reagan and unanimously confirmed in 1986. 

Like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, Justice Scalia is a Racist Suspect. 

Before his SCOTUS residency, Scalia commanded the United States Court Of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where, according to the New York Times, he issued opinions “skeptical of claims of employment discrimination.” In 2013, he helped erode the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which he branded a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” And during the courts re-reconsideration of Affirmative Action, Scalia echoed predictable “Bell Curve” dogma about the intellectual ineptitude of negroes. The late justice explained that, “Most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools.”

Scalia wasn't practicing White Supremacy. He was looking out for our best interest, so that aspiring black scholars don't strain our puny colored brains.    

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, a third generation physician and author of The Isis Papers, discussed Scalia’s assessment of black aptitude during one of her final lectures before her 2016 death. 

“150 years since emancipation, and [Justice Scalia] is justifying why black people should not be admitted to the law school because they don’t have what it takes. Maybe there’s a little nursery school law school that they can attend. That’s kind of more suited to what we’re going to allow them to do anyway.” 

The American Slave Coast, co-authored by Ned and Constance Sublette in 2015, explains how the United States was founded and thrived on a slave system that required the perpetual rape of black people. The organized sexual exploitation of black bodies informs the genesis of the United States Constitution that Scalia was charged with decoding. The Sublettes write: 

“The story of the Constitution’s making in 1787 has been told any number of ways, typically suffused with a cue-the-kettledrums aura of religiosity and an assumption of American triumphalism. Constitutional historians have tended to portray their subject as the most important political document in world history, in the greatest nation in history. In extreme cases this has involved elevating the framers to a sort of secular sainthood, as in the post-Reagan years, when a school of constitutional interpretation called 'originalism' emerged in American jurisprudence. Most prominently associated with archconservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, originalism is a fundamentalist movement that seeks in effect to construe the Constitution as static and unchanging by mind-reading the intentions of the presumably divinely inspired Framers - a word Scalia writes with a capital F, the way they did it in the eighteenth century. His opinions are shot through with variations on phrases like: 'The Framers recognized …,' 'The Framers contemplated …,' 'The Framers viewed…,' and 'The Framers’ experience …' This is a peculiarly subjective lens through which to view a document created by so many people, at such sharp cross-purposes with each other.

'Aware that the South would not join a Union that prohibited slavery,' writes Scalia’s generally dissenting colleague, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who does not capitalize 'framers,' 'the framers in effect postponed the question of slavery’s continued existence by writing into the Constitution a series of compromises.' But if we were to follow the notion of original intent from the point of view of the South Carolina Framers, we would see the Constitution as protecting the right to own and trade [and rape black people.]”

Victim of R/WS: How the white female is marketed to non-whites

When victims of Racism/White Supremacy (racism is white supremacy, and white supremacy is racism) talk about this dominating, subjugating, marginalizing, and abusive worldwide system, they very rarely, or if ever, speak of the white female as a practitioner and maintenance worker in the system.  She is dedicated to keeping it in existence, forever. It is the white male who is seen as the only practitioner of RWS.  The only white entity working to maintain the system of RWS.  Only white people can practice RWS.  

This is the system they created to dominate, and subjugate those that they classify as not white.  The white Female is often marketed as the white male’s victim.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  She is his partner in this inhumane, global wide, planet wide, criminal regime.  Not just the white male, she is one of the main stake holders in their system.

How is it that the white female , whether she is straight, gay, rich, poor, old, young, has been integral in practicing, maintaining, and benefiting from the system of RWS.  How is it that she does not come to mind when RWS is talked about victims of RWS? How is that possible? How is she able to hide in plain sight? How is this instigator and cause of some of the most racist, terroristic acts on the planet still able to remain under the radar of suspicion when it comes to how victims of RWS view her?  It is because of how she is marketed to the world?  White people are in charge of their image, and the image of their non white victims.  They have been able to make an innocent group of people enslaved, marginalized, and subjugated to this day, out to be racists and the problem of the planet.   

A group of people whom white people dominate in all 9 areas of people activity as described by Mr. Nelly Fuller Jr., economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.  White people own, and run all of these areas.  Yet, they’ve been successful at convincing the world that the black male is whom everyone should fear.  Only people in charge can put out such lies, and make them stick even while there are tons and tons of evidence to the contrary.

Margarita Tartokovsky writes about the advertising psychologist, and father of behaviorism in America, John Watson, in her article, “The Psychology of Advertising.”  She says, “He believed that in order for advertising to be effective, it should appeal to three innate emotions:  love, fear, and rage.”   In 1930,   Watson is also quoted as saying, “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-informed, and my own specified world to bring them up in,  and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even begger-man, and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his  ancestors.”

Behaviorism, this method of psychology, is to provoke and manipulate impulses and passions, and study the effect upon behavior.  The white female’s marketing  seduces her victims into thinking she can be trusted, and that she is good, whereas the White male is evil.  She is the  “fairest’ of the two.  White people’s dictionary defines fair as, “Free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice, marked for favoring conditions. Archaic. Something that is fair, a.  a woman, b. a beloved woman.”  The only woman who has ever been called fair is the white woman.  See, she is defined as beloved, free from bias, free from dishonesty, free from injustice.  Some of the related words to fair, on white people’s dictionary.com website are, blonde, Caucasian, and economic value.  This is exactly how the White female is marketed to her victims.  Who is the fairest of them all?  The white female.

The white female’s nude, and semi-nude body is paraded worldwide as every man’s desire.  Playboy magazine is in most of the world where non white people reside.  Young, non white males see her naked before they see the females in their own “race” naked in a sexual way.  It is her image that most non white males are seduced into fantasizing about throughout their lives because of the non stop, 24/7 marketing campaign that goes on about her throughout their lives?  She is the most seen female in movies, TV, DVD's, videos, etcetera.  This is by design.  countless non white females are compared to the white female. She is called beautiful, gorgeous, etc. all the time on TV, and in magazines regardless of how she looks. A Study showed that white males receive the highest esteem boost when watching television. It said that white females do not. Again, making the white female a victim of the white male, and a victim in general. We all work around whit females, they know they dominate all non white people. It is her looks that non-white females are constantly compared to - especially high-melanin females classified as black.

The cosmetic industry was made for the white female to better her looks in a world dominated by melanin women.  However, that gets lost on her victims because of psychological advertising aimed at them.  She is not marketed as needing help to become beautiful. She is marketed as the source, the definition of beauty.  The one that all non white females should look like.   Even in an all non white community, most victims of RWS have white, female teachers.  She is marketed as the very definition of  motherhood, womanhood, the perfect wife and girlfriend, the ultimate sex partner, color blind, and wielding justice and ‘fairness” where the white male won’t.

We know this mind control is a con job because white men and women have the highest divorce rates.  The marketing of the white female is for the victims of the worldwide system of Racism/White Supremacy.  White men know the truth.  They know it is one big, fat, Wizard of Oz, lie.  It’s not about truth, it is about maintaining, RWS.   Corporations spend millions on a thirty second ad because it works.  In her article, ‘Why we spent millions on a 30-second superbowl ad-twice, Lindsey Blakely writes, “More than 1 million people visited HomeAway.com in the 24-hour period after the Super Bowl and traffic remained up for the following two months.”

The white female is marketed the way she is because that’s the role she plays in her system of RWS.  She’s good at it.  She is dedicated to practicing and maintaining the system of RWS.  She is dedicated to her posterity practicing and maintaining the global wide, multiple continent wide, family business-RWS.

A jury of 5 out of 6 white females (83%) found George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering, unarmed, non white, teen, Trayvon Martin.  In a , 2012,  study led by Duke University researchers, it was found that , in Florida, where there was an all white jury, the black defendant was convicted 81% of the time, and whites, 66% of the time. The study did not say an all white, male jury. It says an all white jury.  These white female jurors followed the standard operating procedure of WP in Florida, and all over the world as a matter of fact.  They did nothing different than when all white male jurors would convict black males during the Jim Crow era. Usually, accused of crimes against the white female. Unlike White males, she is marketed as fair.  White females terrorized the Little Rock 9.  White females were integral in shutting down the school system in Virginia for five years just so that black children could not attend better schools.

Part of white people’s long success of maintaining the system of RWS is not just their aggressive, in-your-face, overt inhumane, terroristic acts, but their tender, refined acts of so called kindness, sympathy, and empathy towards their victims.  White people cause the famine, drought, war, despair, poverty, anti-non-white sentiments - especially anti-black - then come in with the cornbread, water, job, a place to sleep, smile an affirming nod, a validating compliment etcetera.  They cause the problems of their victims then come in as hero, heroin, and solvers of the problem. What better way to confuse your victims in to thinking that you are good? After the first gang of soldiers dropped the atom bomb on  their victims of RWS in  Japan, the second leg of their racist gang members came in to “heal’ their wounds.  This is to confuse their victims, and make them think that there are some good white people.  White people must have their victims believing that not all white people are Racist/white supremacists - just those sad, uneducated, ignorant, crazy Ku Klux Klan members. The Ku Klux Klan has never just been made up of uneducated, ignorant white people.  The Klan members were/are senators, mayors, governors, sheriffs, judges, county clerks, etcetera. See, white people are now marketing the Klan as backward, harmless, loud mouths who are harmless. They have been scapegoated as the ONLY white supremacists. No white person is harmless. This white female is the greatest beneficiary of this belief.

The white female is marketed as weak, powerless, a victim of the white male. She is often mentioned alongside of her victims of  RWS when speaking about injustice around the world to various groups. Whenever you hear the word, woman or women, it is referring only to the white female.

Powerless?  White females always say they are less powerful even in comparison to her male victims of RWS.  Another con.  One of the most powerful people on the planet is Queen Elizabeth, a white female.  It is reported that she owns one sixth of the world’s non ocean surface, or 6,600 million acres, 31 countries, many of which, non white people reside.  This white woman has been queen for over 60 years.  I am sure she has say in how the plantation, also known as earth, operates.  It can be argued that she is the richest person on earth. She holds massive, global power. Again, white people even market this white female ruler as not really in charge. Just someone in authority whom no one fears. She doesn't use it, etcetera. Just sitting on power - clueless as to how or if to use it. She has already been using it. The fact that she is old really plays to the white female's marketing as harmless and gentle.  Read up on all that she has the power to enact if she wants to.  It is she who white male US Presidents have come to get the once over when they got elected over the many years she has been ruling.

The white female's words caries a lot of weight on their world wide plantation.  They have caused lives, and careers to end, and towns with thousands of non white people to be burned.  Her powerful, lying lips caused black wall street to be burned down and black people murdered,  Rosewood, Fl. to be razed  and black people slaughtered, Emmett Till to be murdered. White historians have documented hundreds of similar outbursts of White Terror. Susan Smith falsely accused black males of killing her sons, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood to specifically cut down on the birth rate of BP-genocide, a white woman ended  Herman Cain’s run for President by saying he, of course, sexually assaulted her, over a dozen white women, with no proof, just their words,  came out and said that Tiger Woods slept with them, and they were believed.  White women were caught kidnapping Haitian children during the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, and they were not sent to jail. 

If an infertile or fertile white woman wants to take her non white victim’s children, and “raise” them in her home, it gets done.  See, white people cause all of the conditions that put their non white victims in impotent, pitiful predicaments. Then white people come in as the hero/heroin. Another way for their non white victims to grow up thinking of white people as good, rescuers, mother, father.   This way  they don’t have to worry with too many uprisings from their victims.  Keep them confused as to who white people really are.  White people are  fed up with this  Affirmative Action, B.S.  Who do they send out to lead the dismantling of it?  A white female.  The dismantler in-chief, herself.  She takes down communities, towns, countries, and legislative acts.  White people give it, and the white female taketh away.   She rules over her victims of RWS with her power.   She is the very definition of the idiom, “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Another white woman, and Australian mining mogul, Gina Rinheart, in 2012, said that Africans would work for less than $2 per day in her mines, or look for other work.  Forbes estimates Rinheart to be worth $18 Billion. White female, Queen Victoria, was one of the world’s biggest drug dealers.  She ordered the overthrow of India, and flooded China with opium causing its citizens to become addicted. 

The white female is not the white male’s victim, she is his partner in the crime against humanity-RWS.  The organized, criminal regime that they call , RWS.  They have squabbles, and spats over  the tactics and strategies to use to practice RWS.  They do not argue over if they should practice RWS.   All white people believe that white people should  dominate all non white people on the planet.  This is evidenced by the fact that white people continue to  dominate, subjugate, marginalize, every group on the planet whom they classify as not white.  They rule, and reign in all nine areas of  people activity as described by Mr. Nelly Fuller Jr., economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and war.

White people aren’t coincidentally ruling in all of these areas.  It is  deliberate, purposeful, willful, and shows a dedication to making sure that white people dominate non white people worldwide.  The white female is white.  Just like white people constantly tell themselves, and their victims that they are the best things that ever happened to the earth.  Though,  we see that they’ve caused global warming, polluted water,  over growth of crops to keep their capitalism going, polluted air with their industrial and technical revolution, they’ve caused obesity to be on this planet like never before with their junk food, fast food, pre packaged foods, and fake foods.

They’ve caused harm, death, and destruction to all inhabitants of the planet, great and small, fowl of the air, beast of the field, fish of the sea, plant life, and the eco-system.  We see their handy work, their destruction.  Yet, they’ve been able to convince their victims that they’ve improved their quality of life.  That before them, everyone was living the worst kind of existence.  This coming from a people who didn’t even have a hygiene system in Europe.  This coming from a people whose feces infested streets of Europe almost wiped them off the planet.  Not to mention their  2 world wars that almost wiped them off the planet. Yes, they are exceptional.  Exceptionally bad for non white people.   WP are notorious for their biological weapons, and diseases.  Yet, when we think of them, only smart, forward thinking, exceptional comes to mind.  Why?  They are in charge of their image unlike their victims. They market themselves through psychological advertising as such.  Not to mention, they are war mongers, who kill for fun.

The white female is not working against or countering the system of RWS.  She works to make sure that her white children understand, practice, maintain, and benefit from the long lasting , been here too long , global wide, family business, RWS.  In the words of Mr. Neely Fuller, Jr., “Follow the logic and the evidence.”

References
John B. Watson
Fair
"Why We Spent Millions On A 30 Second Super Bowl Ad... Twice"
"Supreme Court Says Native American Child Doesn't Have To Be Given To Biological Father"
"Laudanum, the heroin of the 19th century"
"She's back: World's richest woman makes case for $2-a-day pay"
"Couple forced to give adopted baby back to Native American tribe"