| Hooray for Hollywood.
There's probably not a corner of this
planet that hasn't heard about the magic of the community in Southern California
known as Hollywood. More than just the entertainment capital of the world,
Hollywood is synonymous with glamour, fame, and success. And from the executive
towers to the dark and cavernous sound stages, from the disappearing back
lots to the transplants in Florida, Hollywood's magic has been far more
successful than most people can even conceive. And we're not talking about
the Technicolor bloom of the yellow brick road, the thrill of Panavision's
anamorphic lens, or the wild effects of Industrial Light and Magic.
What we are describing is some
of the most talented political sleight of hand in history. We're referring
to Hollywood's ability to influence public opinion and mold the culture.
It represents the epitome of "political prestidigitation," and it's
the centerpiece of the Gramscian Cultural Elite. It is radical influence
pedaling distilled to an art form. Insiders adamantly insist that their
industrial product has little effect on public behavior. Yet these are
the same people that produce commercials fetching as much as a million
dollars a minute for airtime on Superbowl Sunday. Hollywood's own apologists
for sex and violence deny their ability to influence in one breath, and
in the next applaud director Frank "It's a Wonderful Life" Capra's
WWII commission to produce anti-Nazi and anti-Japanese propaganda films.
The idea that Hollywood's panoply of
writers, producers, and directors has no effect on public behavior is completely
comical. It's as laughable as Bill Clinton's recent claim to be increasing
public trust in America, or Al Gore's declaration that he invented the
Internet. Hollywood is the original clandestine public opinion machine,
and...operating largely right out in the open...they're as good at it as
anyone in the world. It's really no secret that Hollywood has long been
the official global propaganda engine for the left. And like the make believe
world of Hollywood's false fronts, the political view they support is also
a masterful deception.
"[The Communists]
taught the philosophy of the lie. They taught that allegiance to the party
and acceptance of orders from party heads, whose interests were not just
those of the United States, were paramount. Because I have experienced
the deception of the American Communists, I will not trust them." ...Eleanor
Roosevelt in 1945
But even Hollywood's smartest are too preoccupied
with their own narcissism to take notice of the danger of their deception.
They busy themselves bouncing between astounding salaries and unquestioned
support for the Marxist left. They hurry between multi-hundred-million
dollar personal deals and Clinton fundraisers. They buzz back and forth
in their Beemers between their pictures, their exotic vacation homes, and
their annual worship of the "little golden boy"...their coveted
Oscar. And their little golden calf is the perfect pagan idol for the cultural
elite.
In the early years, Hollywood was at
least somewhat careful to appeal to the general consensus of the American
public. Gable and Colbert shocked our grandparents in 1934 when their unmarried
characters slept in the same bed in the Capra-directed feature, It Happened
One Night. Their characters never touched each other in that scene,
but it made wealthy stars out of both of the actors. In 1943, they even
gave us Gary Cooper in the fabulous portrayal of Howard Roark in The
Fountainhead. Louie B. Mayer insisted that Mickey Rooney and Judy
Garland appear wholesome even though their private lives left something
to be desired. Walt Disney was profoundly thoughtful and often announced
to crews on his sets that anyone young or old could use the prop furniture
to relax any time they pleased.
But, following the trial of the Hollywood
Ten in 1948, Hollywood became insatiable in its desire to get even with
the traditionalists that dared to expose their Marxist leanings. In the
cultural revolution of the 1960's Hollywood let loose on the public in
earnest by attacking their basic values. It began innocently enough. One
of the most recognized examples of the sixties movement mentality was Easy
Rider, where Jack Nicholson's everyday character tunes in, turns on,
and drops out. Then we moved on to films like Myra Breckenridge,
which was directed in a short-lived and reckless career by renegade Michael
Sarne in 1969 (and released in 1970). He dredged up Mae West from retirement
in her eighties, and had women walking around the set wearing absolutely
nothing but grease paint bathing suits. Credible accounts had Sarne passing
out LSD to people behind the scenes.
Whatever the reason, after Myra Breckenridge,
there came a gusher. No amount of degrading sex or vicious violence seemed
to be enough. Through the rest of the 1970's the Mitchell Brothers and
Pussycat Theatres helped us further down the path of cultural revolution.
Anyone of almost any age could take their raincoat downtown to the musty
lodge seats of worn out theaters and watch Marilyn Chambers...a model featured
at the time on every woman's household laundry detergent...have simultaneous
sex with five men in Behind The Green Door. While the Mitchell
Brothers were not strictly part of Hollywood's own clique, the inside forces
not only quietly endorsed their work but were heavily influenced by it.
Nearly everyone in Hollywood got a little something on the side by working
on a porn. From that point on, Hollywood could always point to the extremes
of the Mitchell Brothers to make the worst of their efforts look tame.
Then we got cheap seat Freddy Krueger
turning the serious subject of serial killing into a joke in the Nightmare
on Elmstreet series. It was followed by hideously-inflated surrealistic
violence committed by two characters bad mouthing the private ownership
of firearms and the NRA in Lethal Weapon. After that we were
treated to tender premarital sex between fifteen-year-olds on prime time
television in the Wonder Years, a blueprint for middle class kids.
And the nineties gave us the outing of Ellen, Natural Born Killers,
and Beavis and Butthead. The latter of course were the charming,
ever popular animated nose-picking generation-X heroes for both children
and adults, two total losers who lusted together over Chelsea Clinton.
How does this compare with WWII veteran Jimmy Stewart's embarrassment at
performing his first screen kiss with Donna Reed in It's a Wonderful
Life back in 1946? And today, are we legitimately entitled to wonder
if Saving Private Ryan really does justice to those who fought and
died opposing the National Socialists?
In Hollywood, any challenge to the wisdom
of the changing cultural background of modern film production is viciously
attacked as neo-McCarthyism.
Elia Kazan and
the Hollywood Ten
The proposal to present director Elia Kazan
with an Oscar for lifetime achievement has drawn brazen Marxist apologists
from every Hollywood closet. Described in a New York Daily News
editorial as "unrepentant Stalinists," a faction from the Hollywood
left mobilized a concerted effort to oppose the presentation at the March
21st Academy Awards. Kazan handed the names of Hollywood Communists to
the House Unamerican Activities Committee back in 1952. In typical Marxist
hypocrisy, modern Hollywood Stalinists insist that First Amendment rights
were violated. And they argued that the notion of a handful of individuals
from Hollywood ever being a threat to America was absurd. But like all
of those that agree with them on this last point, including Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. in his New York Times piece "Hollywood Hypocrisy," they're
completely wrong. And not just in the sense that the Hollywood Ten might
have been a security risk in the age of the Rosenbergs, but because in
the long run they diligently helped the Marxists almost destroy American
culture by creating the current barbarians within our gates.
While popularly accepted, the argument
about their free speech violation is a questionable claim at best, and
at its worst just another example of liberal sleight of hand. Michael S.
Berliner, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote that, "No
one interfered with their freedom of speech.... HUAC was investigating
a question of fact, the fact being membership in the Communist Party. The
Committee did not ask anyone whether he believed in communism, but asked
only whether he had joined the Communist Party. By joining the Party (an
undisputed fact), the filmmakers were not merely making an ideological
statement but were agreeing to take orders to commit actions...criminal
and treasonable actions, since the Party, and the Soviet government it
served, was openly dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government."
Berliner went on to note that, "In notes
to herself prior to testifying as a ‘Friendly Witness’ in 1947, Ayn Rand
wrote that 'Under American law, there is no such thing as a political crime;
a man's ideas do not constitute a crime, no matter what they are. And precisely
by the same principle, a man's ideas...no matter what they are...cannot
serve as a justification for a criminal action and do not give him freedom
to commit such actions on the ground that they represent his personal belief.'
Legal issues aside, there is an obscene irony in the Communist writers
complaining that their right to freedom of speech was violated, since that
right was precisely what the Communist Party was out to destroy."
"The first
thing that made me feel the party was a menace, not only to the bodies
of people but to their minds and souls, was when Stalin signed the non-aggression
pact with Hitler," he recalled. "Before that, American Communists had been
saying that American should get into the war and fight the Germans... Then,
all of a sudden, when Russia and Germany became allies, I watched my old
friends turn around and say, 'We should not fight in the war.’"...Elia
Kazan
In the March 11 Jewish World Review,
Jonathan Tobin wrote that, "The Soviet Union that American communists served
was a vast prison which threatened the freedom of the world. After the
destruction of the Nazis, the regime of Joseph Stalin was also the greatest
anti-Semitic power in the world. In the year Kazan publicly identified
fellow communists, Stalin was prosecuting a real witch-hunt...the so-called
"Doctors Plot" in which many Jews were unjustly persecuted. Historians
believe that had he lived (he died a year later) he would have attempted
his own anti-Semitic genocide."
But ever in the intoxication of overpaid
denial, according to Hollywood a little Marxism never hurt anyone. The
Hollywood Popular Front did not die with McCarthy. Not by a long shot.
It just went underground with Gramsci. If they couldn't take America by
force, or by fault, they determined to destroy her from within.
Gucci Gramsci
on Celluloid
Has anyone noted the rise of MTV, sometimes
referred to as "empty-V?" With the largest audience in the world, reaching
more young individuals in more countries than any other television broadcast?
Even those who are by no means prudish about sex and violence sometimes
take pause at the interconnected influences of modern entertainment and
the potential causal relationships they imply.
"There's
definitely a feeling in the media today that marriage is square, it's over...that
we should be talking about non-traditional marriages or something."
...Kurt Loder,
MTV News Anchor
Or something...buddy! Meanwhile,
back in the real world, men, women, and children desperately try learning
to live without the warmth and time-tested security of the committed love
naturally shared by parents and children in a family environment. Remember
the famous rhesus monkey experiments where infant animals were kept from
the regular touch of their kind until they broke down into pitiful, trembling
schizophrenic behavior? In the same way millions of latch-key children
now only have the icy guidance of state institutions and the bizarre antics
of television and video games to keep them company. And their television
programming is precisely that: programming. It not only perpetuates their
predicament, but serves to increase its destructive influences as well.
Birds with pea-sized brains build nests and stay to care for their young,
but humans are incapable of such commitment.
Since most traditional families are
now defined as dysfunctional, even encouraged to be, the social engineers
imply that the traditional family institution itself is damaging and unnecessary.
Inviting us to avoid the square prison of marriage, the media gave us Married
with Children, Seinfeld, and Dawson's Creek to show the few who think
they might still hope for it what family life is really like.
In Utopia in Power, Russian historians
Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich tell us about the former Soviet Union
by pointing out that, "The subordination of the family to the interests
of the state was a constant theme in literature, the cinema, and every
form of art." Socialist Dictator Nicolae Ceausescu used illegitimate children
raised under the dependency of government funding to create an icy and
remorseless force of Communist party state police, willing to perpetrate
any kind of violent abuse against citizens, and loyal only to the parent
state. Meanwhile, back in America, the largest percentage of both the women
who give illegitimate birth, and the illegitimate children themselves,
must be placed into the dependent care and pitifully demoralizing containment
of our own ever more authoritarian state.
"The ideal
for which the family stands is liberty. It is the only check on the state
that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state, and more naturally
than the state...Hitler's way of defending the independence of the family
is to make every family dependent upon him and his semi-socialist state."
...G. K. Chesterton
It is clearly not liberty the knowledgeable
Gramsicans seek. And it's not even egalitarianism, but power itself. After
urging the people to run out of control, they expect the public to further
empower them to remedy the problems. And the Gramscian assault continues
with our children, and seems to have crossed over all reasonable boundaries
of common sense. Just after taking office, Attorney General Janet Reno
said, "I would like to use the law of this land to do everything I possibly
can to protect America's children from abuse and violence." Then she unilaterally
and effectively softened child pornography laws. This allowed a much greater
range of legal protection for those who engage in the commercial manufacture
and distribution of pornography featuring children. She and her solicitor
general, Drew Days, took the position that obscene material depicting children
could not be prosecuted unless the boys and girls were shown behaving in
a "lascivious" manner. Camera angles, narration, and the behavior of others
in the films could be as suggestive and filthy as possible, provided the
child's behavior was not interpreted by the Department of Justice as "seductive."
Personally, I can hardly imagine any
sane person leaving a judgement like that up to Janet Reno, but there are
those that did. The House of Representatives voted 425-3 and the Senate
voted 100-0 to condemn her action. In spite of the political pressure,
she refused to back off or modify her decision. This stand-off lasted for
twelve months. Finally, after only two days into the Republican electoral
victory in November of 1994, she apparently experienced an attitude adjustment.
She overruled her solicitor general and returned to the traditional view
of child pornography.
Hollywood Against
America
All right, maybe the traditionalists were
terribly unfair to the Native Americans, and maybe the Donna Reed Show,
Father
Knows Best, and June and Ward Cleaver were a little too perfect. And
maybe you don't mind Hugh Hefner, or even Larry Flynt. But did we really
deserve the whipping we're taking in exchange? Anyone at any age can flip
on their television and watch MTV, the global centerpiece of chic global
New Age hip. Viewers are routinely treated to sweating, sneering, tongue-pierced
tattooed members of the latest Shock Rock ensemble who often act out scenes
of sex and violence. Musically glorified rape is not an uncommon theme.
Women's rights groups couldn't even drag their ear from the MTV "One World
One Music" syndrome, or pry themselves away from their adoration of a womanizing
liberal president long enough to bother themselves with challenging the
demoralizing portrayal of abuse toward women. That would require an objection
to popular, liberal cultural and PC themes. Few have the courage to actually
break ranks with the sublime cool of the "arteest's" clique. In
the meantime, individuals acting out the fantasies they learn from the
cultural elite are not even held accountable. According to the National
Center for Policy Analysis, the mean average expected sentence per committed
rape is just 60 days. Rapists often walk free, even at the highest levels
of the land.
"I think
he's been doing a good job for the country [Bill Clinton]...Actually, I
don't really know if he's been doing a good job as president, because --
to be honest with you -- I haven't even been paying attention." ...Shock-Rocker
Marilyn Manson to Rolling Stone in November, 1998
As more individuals began to admit that
the media influences our behavior, we logically ask why film and television
producers continued to overwhelm us with degrading content. Apologists
argued that media moguls are just giving the public what they want. The
media itself further perpetuates the myth with unsubstantiated disinformation.
A commentator on CNN reported on June 14, 1995, that "Hollywood makes what
it can sell...and it's the public that decides what sells." But in his
book Hollywood Against America, Michael Medved pointed out that
financial balance sheets reveal a very different story. Non-violent family
films consistently out-gross dark, chic, violent, and raw sex films by
a significant margin. For the past 20 years, films rated PG out grossed
R rated films by a ratio of more than 2.5 to one, and earned a far
greater profit for expense! Why then do the Hollywood vanguards of popular
culture continue to risk capital to make films that may win chic awards,
but usually do not produce a successful financial return? Are they simply
shoving a gruesome, spiteful reaction to the black listing of the 1950's
down our swollen throats? Are they unwitting adherents of Gramsci? Are
they just caught up in the downward spiral of their self-created cultural
destruction? The answer is probably all of the above.
One thing is clear. Regardless of their
role in the culture as a whole, media elites can earn extraordinary returns
for their efforts. Michael Eisener, the CEO for the Disney Corporation
is both a liberal supporter of Bill Clinton, and known to have been rewarded
in at least one year with an annual salary and accompanying stock options
of $200,000,000! That amounts to an astounding $547,945.20 dollars per
day! Even given an executive work day fourteen hours long, seven days a
week, without a single vacation, this comes to a virtually stunning $39,138.94
per hour.
And it's not uncommon for a top-billing
star to earn up to a quarter million per day on a ten-week contract. You
would imagine that the artistic Marxists who support the minimum wage might
be inclined to endorse a maximum wage as well. But in Hollywood,
what's good for the goose is rarely good for the gander. Don't expect to
be invited to one of the diamond-studded black tie cocktail parties of
the limousine liberals if you speak this out loud. Meanwhile, as I've noted
before, the divorce rate exceeds 50 percent, illegitimacy is around 35
percent, and since the Hollywood Ten there's been an 11,000 percent increase
in crime among juveniles under fifteen. If you're going to get paid astronomically
well, you'd better do your job equally well. And it appears they have.
But then, as it always is with the dupes
used by the Communists, the chickens invariably come home to roost. An
entire host of popular performers from the spawn of the 1960's suffered
at the height of their careers from heroin overdoses or extreme alcohol
consumption. From heights of unbelievable success, almost countless numbers
Rock and Roll artists have fallen either into oblivion or death from alcohol,
drugs, or depression.
The children of the 1960's liberal generation
have continued the tragedy. River Phoenix, child of Hippie generation parents
and successful film star, dropped dead on the sidewalk outside a Sunset
Boulevard nightspot of a drug overdose. In March of 1995, Hugh Edward O'Connor
committed suicide. He was the son of the film personality popularized by
the liberal series All In the Family, Carroll O'Connor. The producer
of that show, Normal Lear, had to exert great artistic pressure on the
network to get them to accept the liberal topic and slant of the progressive
program during the prudent 1970's. Hollywood and the left still herald
it as a great success, freeing us from the conservative restraints of our
"red-necked" past. But in a televised press release, a grieving O'Connor
pointed to his son's addiction to illicit drugs, and with gritted teeth,
publicly named the Hollywood drug dealer he blamed for his son's death.
Marlon Brando, a cultural icon and spokesperson
of institutionalized illegitimacy and liberal extremes, headed a multinational
household People Magazine called "a true house of pain." Father
of eleven children, five by three different wives, three by his Guatemalan
housekeeper, and three from other extramarital affairs, Brando shows us
all how it's done. Calling the family "a bunch of crazy drunks," his son
Christian succumbed to the strange pressures by shooting and killing the
fiancée of his half sister Cheyenne at the Brando home in Los Angeles.
She bore a son from the liaison who had to be sent to detoxification at
birth because of her struggle with a drug habit. While her brother Christian
was being tried for the murder, she twice attempted suicide. Finally, in
April of 1995, she succeeded. From a life of free love, political correctness,
and fabulous fame and fortune, Brando himself was said to have sunk into
a deep depression, avoiding everyone, including calls from the also grieving
Carroll O'Connor. "I tried to be a good father," Brando said. He probably
believed it.
Lethal Weapons
During WWII Hollywood film stars joined
the service and fought against both the Imperialist Japanese and the German
National Socialists. Many saw combat action and many came home with medals
for courage. Battlefield bravery actually made the unknown Audie Murphy
into
a film star. But for the past thirty years, the living Hollywood theme
is the old Marxist swindle of encouraging their enemies to unwittingly
create and endorse anti-firearms and anti-defense movements. They instruct
the public how to engage in the most gratuitous violence imaginable and
then indignantly point to the resulting public violence. The average American
eighteen-year-old has witnessed some 16,000 homicides on television.
Is anyone really surprised then that a percentage of viewers acts out those
instructions? The typical dialog mouthed by overpaid and under-thinking
Hollywood actors then pretends to oppose the indiscriminate use of firearms.
And it comes from an industry dominated by a people who should clearly
know better.
The Hollywood elite just doesn't get
it. Stephen Spielberg, Jeffery Katzenberg and David Geffen are co-chairing
a May 15 gala honoring admitted liar, adulterer, impeached president, and
accused rapist Bill Clinton. Senator Tom Daschle and Congressman Dick Gephardt
are joining them to benefit "Majority 2000," the committee to recapture
the House and Senate in 2000. Among their stated goals is federal control
of privately held firearms in America.
Aaron Zelman at Jews
For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or JPFO, estimates the
total number of dead at the hands of twentieth century governments imposing
draconian firearms controls at 55.9 million individuals. The overwhelming
majority of them were socialist states that Hollywood has insisted on defending.
As Kazan noted, some of the Marxists he knew in the 1930's even sided with
Hitler when he signed his pact with their beloved Stalin. Zelman recently
interviewed a Holocaust Survivor about his feelings on private firearms
ownership.
Q.) Did
the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before,
we would not be here now"?
A.) Many, many times.
Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms,
but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they
would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really
believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly
frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in
America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of
America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions
about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me
to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?
There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved
if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well
armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by
a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which
is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up
10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.
Q.) What did people
do to try to adjust to Dachau? Keep up their spirits up?
A.) There were some
actors, comedians, and musicians among us. Sometimes they would clandestinely
perform. One of the musicians got hold of a violin and played for us. To
this day, it remains a mystery how he got his hands on a violin. I still
keep in touch with other prisoners. I am a member of the Dachau Prisoners
Association. Each year I go back to Germany to visit.
Hollywood is not listening to Aaron Zelman
at the JPFO, or David Horowitz at the Center for the study of
pop culture. They've totally forgotten that the German National Socialists
set up a national health spa officially described as "an educational
institution for all those of any race, faith, or social position who are
not willing to grasp the fact that the Third Reich has definitely and irrefutably
dawned." They would be kept there until the "gallant SS men have
instilled in them, as in all others, a feeling for discipline and order,
neatness and comradeship." One of the reasons some Americans were alarmed
at the naiveté of the contemporary liberal regarding nationalized
health care, is that the government sponsored national "health spa" described
above was known as Dachau.
Here are some observable facts in recent
history. After twelve months of the recent gun ban in Australia, nation-wide
homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults are up 8.6 percent, armed-robberies
are up 44 percent, and in the state of Victoria, firearms related homicides
are up 300 percent. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins
and assaults of the elderly.
And self-righteous myopic media masters
speak little of the 1982 land mark experiment in Kennesaw, Georgia, where
every law-abiding citizen was required by law to own a firearm and be trained
in its use. This is in some ways at least a little like the Swiss example,
a country with the highest per-capita firearms ownership and the lowest
homicide rate among industrialized nations. In Kennesaw, felony crime immediately
plunged by up to 74 percent in the first year of the experiment. Between
1982 and the date of the last record of this statistic in 1995, there were
virtually no firearms homicides in Kennesaw. None! Period. By contrast,
Bill Clinton's beloved liberal Washington, D.C., has some of the most strict
firearms laws in the nation, and as a result, the lowest per-capita number
of licensed gun dealers in America. Yet the city of 600,000 had 442 murders
in 1992, among the highest in the nation.
"As I pondered
our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me the gift to connect
you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that
same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty... your
own freedom of thought... your own compass for what is right." -- Charlton
Heston addressing the topic "Winning the Cultural War" at the Harvard Law
School Forum, February 16, 1999.
He was describing his portrayal of prophets
from the Old and New Testaments, Christian saints, generals of various
nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents,
a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.
But Hollywood hasn't cared about the
truth or about America for a half century. With the exception of a precious
few like NRA president Charlton Heston, Hollywood can't muster even a neutral
word about the National Rifle Association. They point to the peaceful British
experiment with an all but total ban on private firearms. They forgot that
the British were nearly destroyed in two world wars. And they totally ignore
the WWII NRA drive to collect donated private American firearms to send
to the ailing British after they got their asses kicked of the beach at
Dunkirk. My father, and probably yours, gave up some of their own firearms
to save the British Monarchy from having to learn German. Has Hollywood
done a picture about that? Hardly. Instead we're all expected to license
our lives to a Marxist elite and like it.
Look, everyone want's to be free. No
sensible lover of liberty would prescribe censorship of any kind as a remedy
to the problem of destructive cultural influences. We're all lucky to have
lived during a time still honoring the First Amendment. So exposure to
filth and violence is probably one of the prices to be paid for freedom.
But if the culturally destructive influences of Hollywood continue in the
way it has for the past fifty years, degrading the liberty of free speech
to injurious license will in fact destroy the institution of free speech
itself. If Hollywood isn't intentionally following Gramsci, it has
been in de facto lock-step.
And as Gramsci proposed, it is very
possibly going to finally end up costing us the very liberty being squandered
as we watch the reels of celluloid spin out its destruction. How soon before
we finally allow that we have had enough and officially turn over our wounded
Bill of Rights to the elite PC clique of power-hungry liberal corporate
collectivists rushing in with promises to catch us in our moral free fall?
Most of them are so myopic and ravenous for success that they can't see
it will very likely cost them as well. We have been admonished by some
of the finest minds in history that perversion eats the very guts out of
anyone foolish enough to lose respect for its power. It even has little
regard for those protected by fortune, power, or fame. If they mess with
it, they will come crashing down with the rest of us. We have inherited
the lawful and political means to pursue liberty, happiness, and prosperity,
and instead are in the process of abandoning them to the restricted confines
of lust, ill behavior, and insanity.
"People
have not only material needs, they have psychological needs, they have
spiritual needs. And it is the spiritual needs that will have the last
word. Until the libertarian vision is understood as a spiritual quest and
not merely an economic quest, it will continue to face the kind of misunderstandings
and adversaries it faces today." --Nathaniel Brandon
Of course there's been a recent token presence
in Hollywood today sporting spiritualism and traditional values. But even
programs like "Touched by an Angel" and "Seventh Heaven" have come under
fire for subtly inserting liberal values in their content. Although to
be fair, it's difficult to believe that everyone among the Hollywood crowd
is aware of the destruction of the political posture of the industry. How
can you not love Robert Duvall? Tom Selleck has a straight reputation,
pulling money from his own pocket to provide bonuses for his crews, and
has supported the NRA. Robert Redford actually cleaned up the film version
of Horse Whisperer in honor of those still adhering to traditional
values in the American West. Reports have liberal Paul Newman giving the
proceeds of his popular supermarket food firm to what he feels is a worthy
charity. I think most of us want to believe that a person like that is
merely misinformed about the political realities of the world around him.
And we can only wonder if DeVito, De Niro, and Tom Hanks really knew what
they're doing when they forked over handsome checks in defense of Bill
Clinton. I'd like to believe that they would moderate any collectivist
political position they might be flirting with if they had any clue at
all what they're actually defending...just as their predecessors did when
they fought against the tyranny of National Socialism. But I'm not sure.
And probably neither are they. In general it's safe to say that like Washington,
tinsel town fairly reeks of moral vice, hypocrisy, and opprobrium.
They've basically taken us all to the
box office for the highest pay in the world. And they've given us chaos
in exchange. They've given us Marx with all his hopes for spiteful, violent
revolutionary change. And it sometimes cost some of them their own fortunes,
families, and culture as well. Will any one of them ever come forward and
cry out, "Oh my God, what have we done?" It seems unlikely. Instead they
give us Gramsci wrapped up in a Gucci bag. They give us Hollywood Magic.
But it's a black magic, dark and ominous,
replete with classical demons. Hollywood has clearly contributed to the
complete degradation of the traditional values that once made us strong,
at least in recent decades. We were not supposed to fear the Hollywood
Ten for their support of the murderous, anti-Semitic Stalinists. And we
can argue about that all night long. But we certainly have reason to worry
about those that followed. Are we surprised that with our moral culture
in complete disarray, we find that designs to build miniaturized thermonuclear
warheads, along with the methodology for neutron bombs, have been donated
to the Chinese Communists? Are we surprised that everyone's so preoccupied
with either the five-digit DOW or their own genitalia that they don't even
care?
There's a riddle about the Great Wall
of China. It's a true story. After building a 1500 mile wall to keep the
barbarians out, the nation was almost immediately invaded. The invading
force did not go around the wall. They did not break through the wall.
They did not break down the gates. They did not climb over the wall? So
how the did they get in?
While the Imperial efforts concentrated
on building the wall of defense, the nation's enemies sent ideological
spies into China. These spies spent their time and effort working to destroying
the moral values of the Chinese youth. When the invading army finally arrived,
the spies simply bribed the gate guards, and the invaders marched in almost
unopposed.
So hooray for Hollywood.
Their elite sold us out willfully, spitefully,
and arrogantly, sometimes demanding more money for a single day of their
vanity than ten or even twenty families earn in a year. Some of them spit
on the help that picks up their dirty underwear from the floor of their
dressing rooms at the end of the night. They've given us a world where
we openly expect to picture our president with his pants permanently around
his ankles. They've given us a plaque of violence, illicit sex, and personal
destruction where we care more for immediate gratification and support
for Marxism than the future of a free people. They've done it with the
thrill of a Faustian bargain, spending most of their precious time trying
to stay one step ahead of the very demons they've unleashed from Pandora.
And as long as they can, they're smugly laughing all the way to the bank
at the dopes among the unwitting public at large who so haplessly admire
them and endorse their product. |
