Hotepism Meets History Channel: A Review of "Buck Breaking"
This is a semi-chronological review of Tariq Nasheed’s Buck Breaking movie. You may skip to the final paragraph if you wish for a brief summary of it. I have highlighted that segment in bold. It may come off as a unstructured review somewhat, but the structure of the movie itself is very disjointed, and the review does what it can to try and follow. Overall, the few valid points which are made are often undermined by drivel right after. It is Hotepism meets History Channel. Large portions of the movie make up a bunch of pseudo-history about whites to validate themselves.
One of the themes that the movie opens with is that whites started to practice homosexuality because of the Ice Age and would want to have sex with any hole because it was so cold, and according to some of the people in the movie, whites were a bunch of savages until they met blacks, providing neither timeline nor evidence of this. It’s the first time I’ve heard of this specifically, but at the same time, it’s a very Hotep-sounding thing. Unfortunately/fortunately, they didn’t bring up the especially funny Hotep histories in the movie, although there is a lot of the same absurdity.
It also references ridiculous books like “Pink Swastika” as historical fact in an apparent attempt to demonstrate both how evil and gay whitey is at the same time, implying all the Nazis were gay and Adolf Hitler being involved with Eva Braun was for show, despite this being in the private sphere.
However, the main narrative of showing both how evil and gay whitey is, is that slave owners committing homosexual rape on black male slaves was a commonly used psychological terror tactic without any evidence. Seems like they commissioned this weird “buck breaking” art at certain points in the movie, because none of it was every actually accounted for contemporarily during slavery, so they had to make it up. Of all the grievances about slavery, and they do bring up a few, I don’t see the point in making up this strange fantasy.
It’s a recurring theme throughout about 30 minutes of the whole movie, although the topic of “Buck breaking” is brought up from time to time, not really explicitly defined, but seems to suggest that it means that black males are being psychologically raped and emasculated. At the same time lacks, certain speakers in the movie lack any self-awareness, when they complain that their own figures such as Malcolm X are labelled gay as a form of propaganda, despite attributing homosexuality to whites and certain people, for instance as mentioned with “Pink Swastika”.
Only mentioned a few times by Tariq, the idea of “Foundational Black Americans”, does not really say what it is they founded. The viewer may lack context for it, but when he refers to these people, he means blacks brought over from West Africa as slaves before and in the early days of the United States. This suggests that they were involved in founding the country of the United States, as though they wrote the US constitution and created laws from its inceptions, rather than the reality of them being an underclass exploited for physical labour. He seems to try to elevate them to such status spiritually, because of the generation of wealth created for others, and as though the entire country were founded on the plantation system.
Now, there are a few valid ideas it tries to bring up throughout the movie. There’s validity in the idea that another agenda is imposed upon blacks, perhaps different from other races, and that the LGBT who have massive institutional backing are not oppressed, despite claiming otherwise.
It says that there is nothing wrong with taking pride in straightness, despite other people hating you for saying it. There’s also validity in the complaint about the browbeating of them by people who refuse to accept LGBT values, even though they are not unique in that.
There are themes touched upon like putting race first and undermining of the black family and masculinity being treated as a “disease”. Although I am not black, I can empathize with these views, as denying the existence of race or its significance has had innumerable consequences in the contemporary world. The movie overall approaches most things from a black identitarian lens, although it does intermingle with Nation of Islam themes, which often comes off as absurd, undermining the former. The movie seems to demonize whites far more than it attempts to empower blacks, the latter of which it tentatively attempts to propose in a rather scattered narrative near the end.
They say there are efforts to make the black community gay, but at the same there are other lines of dialogue which conflict with this narrative such as nobody doing more for homosexuality than black men. What is it that you want, then?
There is a brief part about the movie that talks about education, in that modern education is forcing young children to learn about sexuality nowadays, which was not something children ever had to think about, because they simply wouldn’t have these feelings. This stretch of about 5 minutes or so was the longest part of the film that was coherent and made complete sense, otherwise it is usually not for more than a few sentences at a time because it promptly derails itself with nonsense.
The hate-boner Tariq and some other Nation of Islam members have for the boogeyman of “white supremacy” being responsible for almost everything today, leads to them making strange things up at times to reinforce their views, some of which I have mentioned previously. They seem to suggest that they’re largely the main group being targeted by “white supremacist homosexuality”, and that other people do not share certain other contemporary social struggles and beliefs as them, divorced of their race.
There are goofy instances such as calling people who do certain things white or “honorary whites”, which is said while showing a picture of Omar Marteen, the Middle Eastern Pulse nightclub shooter, to which I thought you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
They complain about CIA assets having undermined them, which is fair. I couldn’t say to what extent such a thing is present in target African-Americans today, but the distrust of narratives that have come from the CIA makes sense.
With the narrative about the family, they excuse undermining their own family structures. They claim black men are compelled to abandon women something because of paying them welfare or money or something – honestly did not really understand what it was getting at here – and that they were forced to walk away. Why not try taking some accountability about many black men not being family men, because they have little to no desire to instead? It keeps dodging accountability, and seems to suggest that whites are somehow responsible for blacks twerking, as if they culturally imposed that on them, especially when it is men doing it.
One throwaway line was, almost if not exactly verbatim “Japanese men can’t dance, they just jump up and down.” According to them black men had to go Japan teach them to dance? Hotepism rears its brain-damaged head far more many times than necessary in this movie, and that is just one of many examples.
“If you can exploit children, you have dominance over an entire society” was the most original thought to come out of this whole thing and is very true. This comment seemed to be sandwiched between talking about the American education system and pedophilia. Again, the disjointed narrative does not seem to allow for that very long. At a certain point, I got the impression that the movie would have been much better off sticking to a few topics and expanding upon them in much more detail, rather than constantly assaulting the viewer with what was largely a bunch of trivia or absurd fantasy. It is like the movie does not want the viewer to take time to think about what is going on, so it keeps barraging them with a bunch of tangentially related stuff at best, so they cannot decide what is plausible or important.
Overall, there seems to be a lot of jealousy and at times projection undermining their own narrative. They talk about pedophilia, and turn a blind eye to the same sort of theme in the black community and blacks typically losing their virginity at a much earlier age than other racial groups. Epstein is mentioned, his Jewish background isn’t noted: everyone is whitey to them. This is further reinforced when they seem to act very dismissively towards other groups such as Asians and Hispanics the few times they are brought up in the movie, going as far to say as, “only us blacks are a threat to white supremacy”, which really comes off as anti-white more than actually caring about any sort of “supremacy” given how disjointed their narrative is, and almost seeing to suggest that blacks taught them how to have vaginal sex with women and to have culture.
One line of dialogue that baffled me was “Buck breaking techniques used during slavery vs the scientific buck breaking now”. I am sure they mean about the psychological rape, but that’s even accepting the premise that “buck breaking” was any sort of significant phenomenon. It makes me wonder why he did not simply talk about terror tactics with the purpose of submission. I believe because it is a harkening back to an old era that is very important to African-Americans, whether certain events happened or not. They cannot accurately say they are in the same conditions now as then, but the notion that certain elements of slavery are present towards blacks now is sure to compel people more than simply talking about psychological tactics used to keep them in line.
Unexpectedly, one person speaking was conscious of the impact of putting soy in GMOs and food products generally, leading to feminization and symptoms such as man boobs. Again, this is not anything new to certain circles of the internet, and not targeted at blacks exclusively either. Many blacks however, do have an unhealthy diet moreso than other races, so this could be the theme which they do not explicitly want to state to make them look bad, even though they unintentionally make themselves look bad several times throughout the movie despite claiming perpetual victimhood. Though the way I describe it now was in more detail than when it was described in the movie; I am inferring from what I know. I am trying to be generous about this, as whenever the movie starts speaking about something compelling that is not nonsense on its face, it soon whiplashes into another topic entirely.
They says weed contributes to “gender neutering” of black America, again, marijuana usage is a widespread thing, but because blacks tend to use marijuana more, they may perceive it is something targeted specifically at them. Again, I am drawing another inference here because the movie does not state certain things explicitly that it ought to.
Some of the things mentioned are actually things known to be targeted to them, but seem to hold no accountability for things like black-on-black crime, suggesting it’s mostly actually brown-on-black crime, e.g. in Chicago, when that is false.
The outro attempts to bring the narrative together, but the various speakers again have a rather disjointed narrative, although it is somewhat more coherent and cohesive than the rest of the movie.
Tariq talks about Whataboutism used on blacks by LGBT or feminists and the like when black want to bring up their concerns, which is fair, but he still talks about “muh reparations”, which seems to run counter to the other people in the movie some of whom are concerned with blacks taking accountability and trying to uplift their race/community/family.
Some others have said that the family is important, men and women need to have relationships and that the narrative of an “independent black woman” is harmful to them, rather than a good thing. Another talked about nutrition, “old-school” family, masculinity and education are values that blacks need to bring back. The overall theme of the outro is “we need to be better”, but this “plan” does not have much beyond a laundry list of things to do, so it comes off as wishful thinking, like a the Hotep equivalent of a “trad” guy who constantly posts “retvrn to tradition” online while actually not doing much with his own life. It’s also a little ironic hearing about traditional values in a documentary made by Tariq “K-flex” Nasheed, who does have a history for being a bit of a womanizer, perhaps known for his books “The Art Of Mackin” and “The Art of Gold Digging”. Though, maybe he has matured and left sexual hedonism behind?
A point stated by Rizza Islam is “Unite our own media”, “I’m promoting me, if you promote our narrative we can promote ours”, which sounds good on paper, and I am sure people have thought of that, but the media giant is nigh unassailable head on. Best of luck with that, but I would be surprised if they managed to make a tangible, lasting impact. The media ignores these people because they do not really see them as a threat for now, unlike with whites who say similar talking points in regards to their own race. And if they do not see you as a threat, that means they not believe you can challenge them. So, good luck with this, and I mean that sincerely, as I detest the mass media complexes on a similar level as them, and wish the worst for said complexes.
Another speaker says blacks need to practice forgiveness in the Lord’s name, but then accuses whites of not practicing forgiveness themselves. How would he know? The whole movie is about resentment, and they seem to acknowledge it. Look what is in your heart and that of your kinsmen first and foremost. Whites have certainly turned the other cheek. I would say some have gone even further and foolishly put their head on the chopping block in terms of showing how virtuous they are, when it really is some sort of warped virtue without lack of faith in anything meaningful.
At one point, they also talk about “The White Elite” being public enemy number one in the outro, well, I’ve got news for you if you think that, but I doubt Tariq would even listen. I am sure Mr. Rizza Islam’s beliefs in particular are different than Tariq’s though, although it seemed his statements on race were not mentioned in the movie, disappointingly.
Some other speakers say only blacks endanger “white supremacy” not other races, completely oblivious to the anti-whiteness shown by other groups, and again downplaying any affiliation with other races. This was the only time I laughed out loud at the whole movie, as this was coupled with heroic-sounding music. The rest of the time I was so baffled to by the absurdity going on that I mainly stared incredulously at my screen or tried to figure out what was going on as it kept bouncing from one narrative to another, sometimes with speakers offering conflicting narratives in a movie presenting itself as trying to have one cohesive one.
Conclusion: Buck Breaking seemed to show a glimmer of promise in forming a coherent narrative which isn’t full of pseudohistorical nonsense in its conclusion, in spite of the dreck it throws at you incessantly, but it still jumps all over the place, contradicting itself at times. Throughout the whole movie, the viewer is assaulted with many points, the valid ones of which are quickly buried under an avalanche of absurdity. The main titular point of the movie about a historical concept that is dubious at best. The narrative is far too concerned with Hotepism and demonizing whites. Because whites – and other groups seldom mentioned in the movie - may have experienced similar struggles in the modern day, this serves to undermine the narrative that “buck breaking” can be compared to what it happening now, when most of what is stated does not solely or even predominantly happen to blacks. The movie cannot decide if it wants blacks to be accountable or not accountable, or for them to be positive or negative. It does try to take somewhat of a positive tone at the end that attempts to encourage “Foundational Black Americans”. If you are familiar with Tariq’s Twitter account, this is like a two-hour movie version of this: He may say the things he does out of genuine concern for his kinsmen, but whenever a valid point is made, it is quickly followed by some absurdity that leaves any semblance of honesty and veracity behind in the dust.