I am a bit of a film buff. Part of the reason for that is that film is so influential in our culture in shaping worldviews. As such, I like to view films to see what exact paganism is being communicated by writers, directors, and producers in our films.
For quite some time now a large part of my analysis of films is racial. That is I look for what race is being cast into what role and then ask “why was that racial profile cast into that particular role?” When one does that one can often see how routinely white people are being replaced in our myth telling. Also, white people often play the villain or doofus part in Hollywood films with minorities playing the hero roles who stop the bad guy white man. A classic example of this was the remake of the Magnificent 7 which found Denzel Washington playing the chief good guy minority coming to the rescue of a bunch of sheep white townspeople. Denzel Washington, in that film is joined by a bevy of 3 other minorities (A Mexican gunslinger, an Injun outcast, and a Chinaman knife specialist), along with a coward White Southerner (who finally finds his courage at the very end of the film), a White right hand man who is always picking on the Mexican minority gunslinger and a White Mountain man who is clearly portrayed as a Jesus freak who hates injuns.
Recently, a film that did not receive particularly good reviews, seemed to find a anti-Woke, pro White message. That film was “Gladiator 2.” Once again we find Denzel Washington in a key role in the film but this time Washington ends up playing a villain whose death, at the hands of the white hero of the film, ends up re-establishing the heroic White man as the head of a renewed Roman Civilization.
If one interprets “The Gladiator 2” through this racial prism it is not a wonder that it was given such bad ratings. Interpreted via a racial grid the film suggests that while minorities almost overthrow white civilization in the end they fail after white man embraces his heritage identity.
The film gives us a Rome that has white twin brother Emperors who are both obviously effeminate with one obviously sodomite. These twins are destroying white Roman civilization with their perverted excesses. At one point in the film one brother says of the other brother; “the sickness in his loins as gone to his brain.” Clearly, the message of the film to this point is that the white man has lost his way as seen in this perversion and its wicked colonizing of other nations. As the film opens Rome is attacking Numidia. A famous Numidian of the era “Juguruth” has been cast as a black man and the white Romans make the injured “Juguruth” a gladiator and kill him off in a battle in the Coliseum.
The character that Denzel Washington plays connives to murder the twin white effeminate Emperor brothers so that he might become the ruler of all of Rome. Washington’s character’s (Macrinus) murder of the white Roman emperors is particularly vicious and looks a great deal like the violence we see today by blacks against whites.
The Denzel Washington character (Macrinus) is through and through Machiavellian in his rise to power. First Macrinus outwits a stupid White Senator to get into position to get next to the effeminate Emperors and then he outwits the whole white Senate as well as the effeminate Emperors so as to be on the cusp of ruling white Rome.
Much as where the West is now, the white man in the film has become feminized and minorities look to seize the throne from the white man with his effeminate leadership.
However, hope blooms because there remain some white Romans who retain their heritage white identity. The heroes in the film are two white men and a white woman. The son of Maximus (and Grandson of Marcus Aurelius) from the first Gladiator film, (Lucius Verus Aurelius) is a man of integrity and is opposed to both the white effeminate brother Emperors and the black gladiator entrepreneur (Washington’s character) who is seeking to rule Rome. Joining Lucius in the attempt to stop the bad guy Emperors and Macrinus (the Black character) is a Roman General (Acacius) who has done the bidding of the effeminate white brother Emperors in conquering countless nations but has hated them every step of the way for how they have ruined Rome with their sexual perversion and invading of other nations.
These two men are joined by the mother of Lucius Verus Aurelias and wife of Acacius — a white woman with the character name, “Lucilla.” Like every major character in the film she hates the white effeminate Emperor brothers and she plots their overthrow. Lucilla and Acacius end up giving up their lives in order to overthrow the effeminate Emperors in hopes that Lucius will reign because of his royal bloodline. However neither know that Macrinus is about to seize power. It is left to Lucius to defeat the evil bisexual black man (Macrinus) in order for white rule to be maintained over white Rome. In the mano vs. mano final battle Lucius kills Macrinus while all of the white Roman army looks on waiting for who they will follow.
In this film the bisexual black man (Macrinus) is cast as the chief villain who is seeking to kill off white rule so that he can rule over the white empire of Rome. However, the film, while clearly showing how vile and stupid white rule in Rome has become, still suggests that minority rule can be stopped by the rise of two white men and a white woman who still retain their original white Roman heritage identity.
It is not a wonder why the ratings were so low for this film.
“while clearly showing how vile and stupid white rule in Rome has become”
Honest pro-White thinkers have often been forced to express serious disappointment regarding the cultural decay of genetically “impeccable” White peoples (who are usually post-Christian hedonists).
Take Teddy Roosevelt for example (who was deeply worried about the WASP “race suicide”), who around 1910 made his post-presidential “Grand Tour” around the world, who wrote thus about the first visible seeds of Leftist decay in Sweden:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Theodore_Roosevelt_and_his_time_shown_in_his_own_letters_%28IA_theodoreroosevel03bish%29.pdf
“I was saddened to see how Socialism had grown among the people, and in a very ugly form; for one of the Socialist tracts was an elaborate appeal to stop having children; the Socialists being so bitter in their class hatred as to welcome race destruction as a means of slaking it. Personally, as Sweden practically has not only free but almost democratic institutions, I could not understand the extreme bitterness of the Socialist attitude, and in view of what at that very moment the Russians were doing in Finland, I felt that any weakening of Sweden in Russia’s face came pretty near being a crime against all real progress and civilization.”
Twenty years later, in 1930, Joseph Goebbels felt great disappointment at seeing these physically fine but spiritually corrupt Nordic Aryans, as described by the Revisionist historian David Irving:
https://archive.org/details/goebbels-mastermind-of-the-third-reich_202406/page/183/mode/2up?view=theater
“When Easter came in 1930 Göring invited him along to visit his Swedish in-laws. They made a memorable couple—the swaggering aviator and the diminutive figure limping at his side. It was Dr Goebbels’ first trip overseas. Every time he awoke the train seemed to be passing a boulder strewn landscape. The Swedes themselves made up for it. He lusted greedily after the statuesque blonde women, and concluded that they were superior to their menfolk. The Swedish men were doormats, from their monarch downwards. ‘It makes you weep, how numb the blond race has become,’ he wrote, seeking to rationalize his feelings. ‘German on the outside, half-Jews within.’50”
Of course you could mention similar anecdotes about the other “post-Christian” nations besides Sweden as well. But these example show that the decadence seen during the last few decades have been a long time coming.
Actually you could find this phenomenon existing even before the Roman Empire itself (as the perusal of the Old Testament will readily tell you); the 1910 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica noted these words of a Greek historian about the Etruscans, the predecessors of Romans as the lords of Italy:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Etruria
“Diodorus (v. 40) gives a succinct account in which he says that “their country was so fertile they derived therefrom not only sufficient for their needs but enough to supply them with luxuries. Twice a day they partook of elaborate repasts at which the tables were decked with embroidered cloths and vessels of gold and silver. The servants were numerous and noticeable for the richness of their attire. The houses, too, were large and commodious. In fact, giving themselves up to sensuous enjoyments they had naturally lost the glorious reputation their ancestors had won in war.” This last remark shows that Diodorus recognized the important difference between the early Etruscans who built up the country and the later ones who merely enjoyed it.”