0 comment Tuesday, November 25, 2014 | admin
The CofCC blog notes the media blackout (ironic phrase!) on the recent series of attacks on White people by blacks in various parts of our country. In fact, one of the most recent incidents, which took place in Peoria, Illinois, was not even mentioned in the media until Drudge posted it among his headlines.
It's staggering to realize that our so-called 'news' media are brazen enough to try to sweep these things under the rug altogether, or to acknowledge them while studiously avoiding any mention of the attacking mobs' race.
How can the 'news' media maintain even a shred of credibility these days? To say they are derelict in their duty to inform the public is nowhere near enough. In fact, I say they have a lot to answer for in that they are stoking the fires of racial animosity on the part of minorities. It's more startlingly obvious now than ever before that the 'media' play the part of malicious talebearers, with their incessant harping about 'White racism' and 'White privilege'. They endlessly rehash their version of history, in which long-suffering minorities have been wronged by Whitey. Slavery! Jim Crow! Genocide of the 'Native Americans'! Theft of the Mexicans' territory! Institutional racism! Xenophobia!
Is it any wonder that acts of violence against Whites have become increasingly common and brutal? Witness the brutality of the attack on young Carter Strange.
Note that an anti-lynch law is being used to prosecute the attackers of Carter Strange. Ironic, is it not? But it's also justice. The charge of 'racist lynchings' is one that is used to accuse Whites as a people, but as I occasionally mention, it is not often realized that people of every race were lynched in the old days. White men as well as minorities were lynched.
The media stoke the fires of resentment and anger by their constant accusations and slanders. If some malevolent person constantly goaded everyone into hating a particular individual, until that individual was viciously assaulted, we would rightly point out the malicious talebearer who stirred up anger and hatred. In this case, the talebearer is the many people who make up the 'news' media. In reality they are not deliverers of the news; they are propaganda purveyors at best, and libelous, lying instigators at worst. In some cases, their malice is of a passive kind: concealing facts which might reflect unfavorably on their agenda, even concealing these things at the expense of people's lives.
The media have much to answer for, but who will even confront them and denounce them for what they are? Critics will always be dismissed as 'haters' and 'extremists' or 'crackpots.'
I will share with my readers the fact that when I pray for this country, and my folk, I pray most of all that the scales will fall from people's eyes, and that they will see the truth. I've prayed that the truth will soon become so obvious that even the most willfully blind can see it, and that they will stop denying the truth revealed by their now-opened eyes. I pray that regularly, and maybe that, in fact, is what's happening now, with these mounting incidences of racially-based violence.
It's staggering to realize that our so-called 'news' media are brazen enough to try to sweep these things under the rug altogether, or to acknowledge them while studiously avoiding any mention of the attacking mobs' race.
How can the 'news' media maintain even a shred of credibility these days? To say they are derelict in their duty to inform the public is nowhere near enough. In fact, I say they have a lot to answer for in that they are stoking the fires of racial animosity on the part of minorities. It's more startlingly obvious now than ever before that the 'media' play the part of malicious talebearers, with their incessant harping about 'White racism' and 'White privilege'. They endlessly rehash their version of history, in which long-suffering minorities have been wronged by Whitey. Slavery! Jim Crow! Genocide of the 'Native Americans'! Theft of the Mexicans' territory! Institutional racism! Xenophobia!
Is it any wonder that acts of violence against Whites have become increasingly common and brutal? Witness the brutality of the attack on young Carter Strange.
Note that an anti-lynch law is being used to prosecute the attackers of Carter Strange. Ironic, is it not? But it's also justice. The charge of 'racist lynchings' is one that is used to accuse Whites as a people, but as I occasionally mention, it is not often realized that people of every race were lynched in the old days. White men as well as minorities were lynched.
The media stoke the fires of resentment and anger by their constant accusations and slanders. If some malevolent person constantly goaded everyone into hating a particular individual, until that individual was viciously assaulted, we would rightly point out the malicious talebearer who stirred up anger and hatred. In this case, the talebearer is the many people who make up the 'news' media. In reality they are not deliverers of the news; they are propaganda purveyors at best, and libelous, lying instigators at worst. In some cases, their malice is of a passive kind: concealing facts which might reflect unfavorably on their agenda, even concealing these things at the expense of people's lives.
The media have much to answer for, but who will even confront them and denounce them for what they are? Critics will always be dismissed as 'haters' and 'extremists' or 'crackpots.'
I will share with my readers the fact that when I pray for this country, and my folk, I pray most of all that the scales will fall from people's eyes, and that they will see the truth. I've prayed that the truth will soon become so obvious that even the most willfully blind can see it, and that they will stop denying the truth revealed by their now-opened eyes. I pray that regularly, and maybe that, in fact, is what's happening now, with these mounting incidences of racially-based violence.
Labels: Anti White Racism, Biased Media, Corrupt Media
0 comment Saturday, October 11, 2014 | admin
It's interesting that this story has emerged now; it's been known for a while that these things happen.
I posted about such incidents a couple of years ago, but I think the fact that the issue is getting coverage in the mainstream media is something new.
No, not in war, but in the Peace Corps. An investigation by ABC's 20/20 claims that "More than 1,000 young American women have been raped or sexually assaulted in the last decade while serving as Peace Corps volunteers in foreign countries," and that some of the victims say "the Peace Corps has ignored safety concerns and later tried to blame the women who were raped for bringing on the attacks... Jess Smochek, 29, of Pennsylvania was gang raped in Bangladesh in 2004 by a group of young men after she says Peace Corps officials in the country ignored her pleas to re-locate her." These attacks have happened in Benin, Bangladesh, Haiti, South Africa, Georgia, and many other places. When I blogged about the subject a while back, I got one very nasty, bullying-style comment from someone who found my blog piece objectionable, and hateful towards Third Worlders, according to him. Interestingly, the comment was posted from a government facility. The tone of it was rather creepy. But that's the nature of lefties; they become nasty and hateful while deploring other people's ''hate". And when your ''hate'' is nothing but facts, backed up by links -- well, that does not stop the left from attacking.
This piece from Alternative Right is about women in the armed forces, specifically the decision to put women into combat units. I think that one point made in the article, the fact that all our institutions have been infiltrated and co-opted, is a very valid one. Most of us on the right have thought, traditionally, that the military was a last bastion of the 'old America' but we see that this is not the case, and has not been for some time.
This story from the UK has been much discussed lately, though, like the Peace Corps story, it has been known for some time, but ignored by the controlled media.
What is the common thread here? Of course leftism and political correctness drive much of the hypocrisy on these issues. But a very important part of these problems is feminism, which of course is part of the leftist subversion of Western society.
The insidious thing about feminism is that it has pervaded all segments of society; even ''conservative'' or right-wing women -- and men, often -- support feminism, and even more, without realizing it, implicitly endorse feminism and egalitarianism in all its forms. Many uninformed people on the right think it is somehow part of the 'American way' to erase all differences between people, whether racial or gender or any other innate difference.
In discussing the shooting death of a female police officer, the FReepers are divided over whether women should be in such roles, though at least one good comment is offered.
To: AbolishCSEU You are right. Even conservatives have bought into the feminist outrage at the very idea of there being any limits at all on a woman doing exactly what suits her fancy. PC has hit us all hard. - Women ARE built different than men, they don�t have the upper body strength to do certain jobs. A former military officer told me that he had women under his command and that when his company got the order to "bug out", the women couldn�t do the heavy lifting to accomplish a bug out. They�d just ignore the order to do so, and call it done. In combat, sadly, calling it done isn�t getting it done. It�s foolish and costs lives.
26 posted on Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:31:40 PM by Twinkie
I don't know who Twinkie is but she (I am assuming it is a she) makes good sense, unlike some others on that thread who spout the egalitarian party line with the best of them.
Women are different than men, and as 'Twinkie' implies, there should, accordingly, be limits on what they do, and where they go. Is this unfair? It's simple common sense.
The girls who traipse off to the Third World in some do-gooder cause, and who thus come to harm, as well as the young rape victims in the UK, and the women in the military -- all have been taught the feminist dogma that women can do anything a man can do, except beget children. ''I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman!"
Obviously women are not invincible, and women who knowingly enter into dangerous situations based on naivete and ''colorblindness'' may come to harm by having been taught that they are 'strong women' who can handle anything. And besides, everybody is the same under the skin, right?
Feminism taught that girls as young as 12 or 13 were entitled to be called ''women'' and entitled to make their own sexual choices . Young girls like those in the UK incidents likely come from 'broken homes' or homes with an absent father. Their mothers, in turn, are probably self-centered feminists who are out pursuing their own ''choices'' while their daughters go unsupervised and unguided, easy prey for the predators. Girls who are living a loose lifestyle (to use an archaic term) are vulnerable to many dangers. Girls who are out meeting grown men, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, will end up compromised at some point, bereft of inhibitions while intoxicated to insensibility, a sure recipe for disaster.
Yet women continue to insist that women should have a ''right'' to do these things: to impair themselves with drugs or alcohol, to consort with people who are a danger, to wander the streets alone (or with other females) at all hours, in bad areas -- all in the name of 'equality' and 'freedom.'
The same attitude leads young women to go into countries which are known to be dangerous, and to put themselves in risky situations -- to show that they 'trust' people, and to show their 'tolerance' -- but they too seem to think, like Helen Reddy, that they are ''invincible''.
Feminism, more than many other aspects of liberalism, has really dug in deeply into our society. It will be hard to challenge that, but it's something that has to be done.
I posted about such incidents a couple of years ago, but I think the fact that the issue is getting coverage in the mainstream media is something new.
No, not in war, but in the Peace Corps. An investigation by ABC's 20/20 claims that "More than 1,000 young American women have been raped or sexually assaulted in the last decade while serving as Peace Corps volunteers in foreign countries," and that some of the victims say "the Peace Corps has ignored safety concerns and later tried to blame the women who were raped for bringing on the attacks... Jess Smochek, 29, of Pennsylvania was gang raped in Bangladesh in 2004 by a group of young men after she says Peace Corps officials in the country ignored her pleas to re-locate her." These attacks have happened in Benin, Bangladesh, Haiti, South Africa, Georgia, and many other places. When I blogged about the subject a while back, I got one very nasty, bullying-style comment from someone who found my blog piece objectionable, and hateful towards Third Worlders, according to him. Interestingly, the comment was posted from a government facility. The tone of it was rather creepy. But that's the nature of lefties; they become nasty and hateful while deploring other people's ''hate". And when your ''hate'' is nothing but facts, backed up by links -- well, that does not stop the left from attacking.
This piece from Alternative Right is about women in the armed forces, specifically the decision to put women into combat units. I think that one point made in the article, the fact that all our institutions have been infiltrated and co-opted, is a very valid one. Most of us on the right have thought, traditionally, that the military was a last bastion of the 'old America' but we see that this is not the case, and has not been for some time.
This story from the UK has been much discussed lately, though, like the Peace Corps story, it has been known for some time, but ignored by the controlled media.
What is the common thread here? Of course leftism and political correctness drive much of the hypocrisy on these issues. But a very important part of these problems is feminism, which of course is part of the leftist subversion of Western society.
The insidious thing about feminism is that it has pervaded all segments of society; even ''conservative'' or right-wing women -- and men, often -- support feminism, and even more, without realizing it, implicitly endorse feminism and egalitarianism in all its forms. Many uninformed people on the right think it is somehow part of the 'American way' to erase all differences between people, whether racial or gender or any other innate difference.
In discussing the shooting death of a female police officer, the FReepers are divided over whether women should be in such roles, though at least one good comment is offered.
To: AbolishCSEU You are right. Even conservatives have bought into the feminist outrage at the very idea of there being any limits at all on a woman doing exactly what suits her fancy. PC has hit us all hard. - Women ARE built different than men, they don�t have the upper body strength to do certain jobs. A former military officer told me that he had women under his command and that when his company got the order to "bug out", the women couldn�t do the heavy lifting to accomplish a bug out. They�d just ignore the order to do so, and call it done. In combat, sadly, calling it done isn�t getting it done. It�s foolish and costs lives.
26 posted on Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:31:40 PM by Twinkie
I don't know who Twinkie is but she (I am assuming it is a she) makes good sense, unlike some others on that thread who spout the egalitarian party line with the best of them.
Women are different than men, and as 'Twinkie' implies, there should, accordingly, be limits on what they do, and where they go. Is this unfair? It's simple common sense.
The girls who traipse off to the Third World in some do-gooder cause, and who thus come to harm, as well as the young rape victims in the UK, and the women in the military -- all have been taught the feminist dogma that women can do anything a man can do, except beget children. ''I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman!"
Obviously women are not invincible, and women who knowingly enter into dangerous situations based on naivete and ''colorblindness'' may come to harm by having been taught that they are 'strong women' who can handle anything. And besides, everybody is the same under the skin, right?
Feminism taught that girls as young as 12 or 13 were entitled to be called ''women'' and entitled to make their own sexual choices . Young girls like those in the UK incidents likely come from 'broken homes' or homes with an absent father. Their mothers, in turn, are probably self-centered feminists who are out pursuing their own ''choices'' while their daughters go unsupervised and unguided, easy prey for the predators. Girls who are living a loose lifestyle (to use an archaic term) are vulnerable to many dangers. Girls who are out meeting grown men, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, will end up compromised at some point, bereft of inhibitions while intoxicated to insensibility, a sure recipe for disaster.
Yet women continue to insist that women should have a ''right'' to do these things: to impair themselves with drugs or alcohol, to consort with people who are a danger, to wander the streets alone (or with other females) at all hours, in bad areas -- all in the name of 'equality' and 'freedom.'
The same attitude leads young women to go into countries which are known to be dangerous, and to put themselves in risky situations -- to show that they 'trust' people, and to show their 'tolerance' -- but they too seem to think, like Helen Reddy, that they are ''invincible''.
Feminism, more than many other aspects of liberalism, has really dug in deeply into our society. It will be hard to challenge that, but it's something that has to be done.
Labels: Biased Media, Egalitarianism, Feminism
0 comment Monday, September 29, 2014 | admin
Over at the Confederate Colonel blog, Stephen Clay McGehee has been posting a series of videos produced by the Georgia SCV(Sons of Confederate Veterans) which were to be run on The History Channel as paid ads. Now it appears The History Channel has backed out, following a complaint by a liberal blogger. (I wish I had that much power as a blogger, that a complaint from me would stop a cable network from running ads I don't like.)
I am not surprised. Knowing the slant of The History Channel, I was, rather, surprised that they would accept any ad from a politically incorrect group (especially one Confederate-related.)
I have watched the first couple of videos and they are not offensive; they are well-done, and do not represent 'hate' or any such thing. But they do represent a point of view which, shamefully, is not permitted in this country any longer.
Over at Confederate Colonel, you can watch the ads for yourself on this page.
The History Channel, despite its authoritative and impartial-sounding name, is nothing more than a purveyor of propaganda, much like all the so-called educational channels on TV. I am an avid watcher of factual historical programming, but for some time, The History Channel, like PBS and just about all channels, traffics in political correctness, not facts. For that reason there is no longer TV in this home; life is better and more peaceful without it.
But nonetheless, millions of people still watch TV and obtain much of their ''information'' from it. That is why it is tragic that only one side of ''history'' can be heard, and only one side of the ''news'' is reported.
I am not surprised. Knowing the slant of The History Channel, I was, rather, surprised that they would accept any ad from a politically incorrect group (especially one Confederate-related.)
I have watched the first couple of videos and they are not offensive; they are well-done, and do not represent 'hate' or any such thing. But they do represent a point of view which, shamefully, is not permitted in this country any longer.
Over at Confederate Colonel, you can watch the ads for yourself on this page.
The History Channel, despite its authoritative and impartial-sounding name, is nothing more than a purveyor of propaganda, much like all the so-called educational channels on TV. I am an avid watcher of factual historical programming, but for some time, The History Channel, like PBS and just about all channels, traffics in political correctness, not facts. For that reason there is no longer TV in this home; life is better and more peaceful without it.
But nonetheless, millions of people still watch TV and obtain much of their ''information'' from it. That is why it is tragic that only one side of ''history'' can be heard, and only one side of the ''news'' is reported.
Labels: American History, Biased Media, Censorship, Confederacy, Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness, Propaganda
0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
I did not follow the Casey Anthony story closely, though I was aware of the basic storyline, but I was shocked when the verdict was announced, like many people.
This is the classic tabloid fodder story, and I am mentioning it simply because it sums up so many bad trends in our society. It is symptomatic of a great many things, some of which are topics I blog about.
First, Casey Anthony is a beneficiary of the bias in our legal system in favor of women. In cases involving murder, it seems women are less likely to be convicted, and less likely to receive the death penalty if they are convicted. I've remarked on this before. Andrea Yates is an example, and Susan Smith got a much lighter punishment for killing her two sons than a father would likely get for the same crime.
''Infanticide in the industrialized nations is as common or more common as the killings of adults, and the vast majority of these infants are killed by their mothers, according to the World Health Organization.
A custodial mother is five times more likely to murder her own children as a custodial father, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
And women are getting away with it. Among women convicted of killing their infants, two-thirds avoid prison completely and the rest serve an average of only seven years. The average prison sentence for females in the U.S. is only about 70% that of males for most violent crimes. A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman.
How do women get away with it? For one, their victims tend to be the helpless, or semi-helpless, such as children, the elderly, and infants. Thus there's less struggle in their crimes, and less evidence left behind. Also, they tend to use "hands off" methods such as smothering and poisoning, which are less traceable. Female murderers tend to be older than male murderers, and thus are looked upon with more trust and less suspicion. When killing husbands or other adults, women often hire others to do the killing.''
And of course, being young and relatively attractive is not a detriment. People tend to sympathize with a young woman, especially as defense attorneys have a practice of making said young women look demure, sweet, harmless and wholesome in court.
To be fair, it's true they do something similar with male defendants, dressing them up to look respectable and clean-cut, even if they are known thugs. But women benefit more from the makeovers. Female jurors tend to be more easily swayed by this kind of manipulation, and men find young damsels in distress sympathetic sometimes too, as apparently this alternate juror did.
In my personal opinion, defense attorneys are among the most amoral and unprincipled people in our society; it is all about winning the case and adding a notch to the belt, and/or 'sticking it to the system.' Many defense attorneys (and I have known some) are hard-core leftists who think the system should be brought down, period. I do realize that our legal system requires that every defendant be defended, but many defense lawyers go above and beyond, and in some cases have crossed the line into the unethical if not illegal.
When I first heard the verdict, I immediately thought that the jury was probably disproportionately female, and it looks like seven out of twelve were women.
Several blacks were on the jury, and the men selected seemed in a few cases to be not exactly conventional White males. Juries are selected carefully; these things are no accident.
But when you read the Daily Mail article you get a sense that the whole tone of the jury was set by the women:
'We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial.'
The juror, who is single and has no children, added: 'They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity. And there was high morale," she said. "We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins.'
Imagine such a case back in the era when only men could serve on juries; would the jury behave this way?
To me, this case illustrates so many things: feminization of society, the influence of the 'therapeutic culture' with its emphasis on emotion and subjectivity, and then there are factors like the perpetual adolescence of many Americans. This young defendant in saner times would have been considered as a mature woman at 25, not as a 'kid' as her behavior implied. Then there's the fact that she had a child without a father in the picture, much less marriage. Then, the 'wiggerized' way of life, for lack of a better term, that is so widespread among the under-30 set. Then we have the tabloid media culture, where stories like this one are so exploited and hyped.
The fact is this woman will likely profit by her actions; she will be interviewed by daytime TV and tabloid papers, and worst, she will probably go on to have other children.
The dumbing-down of our society is a part of this story, and I refer to the moral dumbing-down that has taken place, not merely the disastrous educational system. Many people don't seem to care about the innocent victims (such as Caylee Anthony) and somehow identify with the Casey Anthonys of the world. That is troubling.
This is the classic tabloid fodder story, and I am mentioning it simply because it sums up so many bad trends in our society. It is symptomatic of a great many things, some of which are topics I blog about.
First, Casey Anthony is a beneficiary of the bias in our legal system in favor of women. In cases involving murder, it seems women are less likely to be convicted, and less likely to receive the death penalty if they are convicted. I've remarked on this before. Andrea Yates is an example, and Susan Smith got a much lighter punishment for killing her two sons than a father would likely get for the same crime.
''Infanticide in the industrialized nations is as common or more common as the killings of adults, and the vast majority of these infants are killed by their mothers, according to the World Health Organization.
A custodial mother is five times more likely to murder her own children as a custodial father, adjusting for the greater number of single mothers, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.
And women are getting away with it. Among women convicted of killing their infants, two-thirds avoid prison completely and the rest serve an average of only seven years. The average prison sentence for females in the U.S. is only about 70% that of males for most violent crimes. A man convicted of murder is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman.
How do women get away with it? For one, their victims tend to be the helpless, or semi-helpless, such as children, the elderly, and infants. Thus there's less struggle in their crimes, and less evidence left behind. Also, they tend to use "hands off" methods such as smothering and poisoning, which are less traceable. Female murderers tend to be older than male murderers, and thus are looked upon with more trust and less suspicion. When killing husbands or other adults, women often hire others to do the killing.''
And of course, being young and relatively attractive is not a detriment. People tend to sympathize with a young woman, especially as defense attorneys have a practice of making said young women look demure, sweet, harmless and wholesome in court.
To be fair, it's true they do something similar with male defendants, dressing them up to look respectable and clean-cut, even if they are known thugs. But women benefit more from the makeovers. Female jurors tend to be more easily swayed by this kind of manipulation, and men find young damsels in distress sympathetic sometimes too, as apparently this alternate juror did.
In my personal opinion, defense attorneys are among the most amoral and unprincipled people in our society; it is all about winning the case and adding a notch to the belt, and/or 'sticking it to the system.' Many defense attorneys (and I have known some) are hard-core leftists who think the system should be brought down, period. I do realize that our legal system requires that every defendant be defended, but many defense lawyers go above and beyond, and in some cases have crossed the line into the unethical if not illegal.
When I first heard the verdict, I immediately thought that the jury was probably disproportionately female, and it looks like seven out of twelve were women.
Several blacks were on the jury, and the men selected seemed in a few cases to be not exactly conventional White males. Juries are selected carefully; these things are no accident.
But when you read the Daily Mail article you get a sense that the whole tone of the jury was set by the women:
'We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial.'
The juror, who is single and has no children, added: 'They picked a great bunch of people, such high integrity. And there was high morale," she said. "We all joked. We are like a big group of cousins.'
Imagine such a case back in the era when only men could serve on juries; would the jury behave this way?
To me, this case illustrates so many things: feminization of society, the influence of the 'therapeutic culture' with its emphasis on emotion and subjectivity, and then there are factors like the perpetual adolescence of many Americans. This young defendant in saner times would have been considered as a mature woman at 25, not as a 'kid' as her behavior implied. Then there's the fact that she had a child without a father in the picture, much less marriage. Then, the 'wiggerized' way of life, for lack of a better term, that is so widespread among the under-30 set. Then we have the tabloid media culture, where stories like this one are so exploited and hyped.
The fact is this woman will likely profit by her actions; she will be interviewed by daytime TV and tabloid papers, and worst, she will probably go on to have other children.
The dumbing-down of our society is a part of this story, and I refer to the moral dumbing-down that has taken place, not merely the disastrous educational system. Many people don't seem to care about the innocent victims (such as Caylee Anthony) and somehow identify with the Casey Anthonys of the world. That is troubling.
Labels: Biased Media, Criminal Justice System, Feminism, Feminization Of Society, Therapeutic Culture
0 comment Monday, July 14, 2014 | admin
U.S. Adults Estimate that 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
This recent Gallup poll shows that Americans tend to overestimate the actual number of gays and lesbians.
The Gallup website, of course, does not say that; they say
There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such.
However they note that
Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that "10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual."
This website discusses how the ubiquitous ''10%'' estimate promoted by gays and leftists became the standard. The above-linked article mentions the origins of the 10% figure in the questionable 'researches' of Alfred Kinsey. Why Kinsey has been treated as a legitimate researcher instead of the fraud that he was is a mystery -- well, actually it's no mystery when we remind ourselves of the dishonesty of our biased media.
It's no surprise that the public overestimates the number or percentage of gays, given that homosexuals are greatly overrepresented in the entertainment media, as well as in 'news' coverage. And the same goes for other 'victim groups.' I occasionally ask people to estimate the percentage of blacks in our country. They often guess 30% - 40%, rather than the true 12-13%. And they overestimate because of the disproportionate numbers of blacks in commercials, movies, and entertainment generally.
It would seem as if that is part of the intent of overpopulating our media with gays and other minority groups: to give us the impression that said groups are more numerous, and therefore more important in society, while diminishing our sense of ourselves as the dominant or majority group.
This recent Gallup poll shows that Americans tend to overestimate the actual number of gays and lesbians.
The Gallup website, of course, does not say that; they say
There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such.
However they note that
Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that "10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual."
This website discusses how the ubiquitous ''10%'' estimate promoted by gays and leftists became the standard. The above-linked article mentions the origins of the 10% figure in the questionable 'researches' of Alfred Kinsey. Why Kinsey has been treated as a legitimate researcher instead of the fraud that he was is a mystery -- well, actually it's no mystery when we remind ourselves of the dishonesty of our biased media.
It's no surprise that the public overestimates the number or percentage of gays, given that homosexuals are greatly overrepresented in the entertainment media, as well as in 'news' coverage. And the same goes for other 'victim groups.' I occasionally ask people to estimate the percentage of blacks in our country. They often guess 30% - 40%, rather than the true 12-13%. And they overestimate because of the disproportionate numbers of blacks in commercials, movies, and entertainment generally.
It would seem as if that is part of the intent of overpopulating our media with gays and other minority groups: to give us the impression that said groups are more numerous, and therefore more important in society, while diminishing our sense of ourselves as the dominant or majority group.
Labels: Biased Media, Demographics, Political Correctness
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
Recently we discussed the idea of the Northwest redoubt, and on the other end of the spectrum, the downside of city life, the conditions that have caused many people to seek some refuge where they may still live free, outside the oppressive system that has been imposed on us.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Coincidentally, from the Daily Mail (UK) here is a piece about Kalispell, Montana, which we are informed is a 'haven for extremists'. When I read the headline, I thought of the recent article by Chuck Baldwin, wherein he explained his reasons for relocating to that part of the country. And seeing this headline, I thought, surely, the media won't be brazen enough to include Pastor Baldwin in the 'extremist' category. But sure enough,
''Others include patriot leader and former Constitution Party vice presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who believes the U.S. is headed for a fight between big-government globalists and independent patriots...''
Shamefully, the Daily Mail article quotes the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, as the authority on 'hate groups' and extremists. This is the prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know whether the Daily Mail's British readers know that the SPLC is not to trusted, being itself a far-left, hate-mongering group which has somehow insinuated its way into the position of arbiter of what is acceptable and what is not. If the SPLC had its way, there would be no free speech; the only ideas permitted to be expressed would be those which agreed with their own.
As for the other 'extremists' named in the article, I am not familiar with most of them, but I never take the media's word for it when they label people in this fashion; if they call someone an 'extremist' I take it that the person so named is probably someone who is a sane and normal person who hasn't submitted to an insane system. The truth is 'extremist' today.
This article does illustrate very well that there seems to be an ironclad rule: you can be just as careful and respectable as you like, avoiding all controversial language and inflammatory rhetoric, but if you take exception to the party line and the orthodoxies of the day then you are a dangerous extremist. Pastor Baldwin's very reasonable, non-extremist views have him painted as some sort of dangerous fanatic, and his community, by extension, tarred with that brush. That's an injustice.
The comments to this article are moderated, and there are only four there as I write this. I have a feeling that posting comments critical of this article or the SPLC would be a waste of time.
The unquestioning 'journalists' who write these pieces are never challenged on their facts, and they, in turn, never seem to question the authority of the SPLC . Neither the media nor these witch-hunting leftists are called out for being openly biased and bigoted. The game is rigged in their favor, and people remain blind, thanks in part to this one-sided media machine.
Labels: Biased Media, Controlled Media, Cultural Marxism, Leftist Bigotry, Leftist Intolerance
0 comment Friday, May 30, 2014 | admin
In a previous post I mentioned the article on TakiMag regarding conspiracy theories, and expressed my intention to write a blog piece about it.
The subject of conspiracy theories is a complex one, and I can't begin to do it justice in a blog post, so let me just offer some thoughts about the subject in general.
We are all familiar with certain popular conspiracy theories. I am sure we can all name several of them, such as the JFK assassination theories (multiple assassins, possible involvement of everybody from the various Mafia families to the CIA), the recent 'Truther' belief system, which believes there is a conspiracy to hide truth about 9/11. Then there are those who doubt that man has ever landed on the moon; the moon landing images were all created on a cheap set or in the California desert somewhere, so the story goes.
Then there are the UFO conspiracy theories, and the issue of 'chemtrails.'
These are seldom covered by the 'respectable' media, except in a derisive fashion.
A few years ago, talk-radio host and writer Michael Medved spent quite a bit of energy and time ridiculing and vilifying those who believed that a North American Union is in the works -- even though talk of it has been quite open, with North American summit meetings involving the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Still, some people seem determined to deride and discredit anyone who writes about it or believes the planned NAU is real.
Even today, half a century and more after the 'Communist scare' of the 1950s, even after documents have been released verifying that there were Communists in positions of power, and that there were Soviet agents who passed information to that government -- we still read in the dishonest media the assertion that the Communist conspiracy was all in the 'paranoid' minds of McCarthy and other right-wingers. Many people today believe that the Communist conspiracy was not real at all, only a pretext by McCarthy and others to deprive 'progressives' of their rights and freedoms.
Obviously there are conspiracies.
Our own country came into being as the result of what was actually a 'conspiracy' among English colonists.
The Venona Papers establish that there was a Communist conspiracy to subvert this country. Can anybody look at today's events and doubt that they succeeded to a great extent? The left of course celebrates their 'change', but still deny that any subversion by their side existed.
Not everything is random chance or coincidence, any more than everything is a conspiracy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Similarly, skeptics tell us that they don't 'believe in UFOs' when what they probably mean is that they don't believe in extraterrestrials visiting this planet in some kind of spacecraft. Of course there are Unidentified Flying Objects; many people see things in the skies that they can't identify with certainty. Some may be natural phenomena, some ordinary aircraft which are unrecognized as such. But to categorically state that there 'are no UFOs' is rather silly. There may not be any space aliens flying around our earth, but there are unidentified flying objects, whatever their origin.
It is facile to be skeptical for skepticism's sake, and while skepticism is a good thing to an extent, it can be closed-mindedness and arrogance, because it seems to assume that there are no mysteries in our world, no unknowns. Likewise, 'the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God', believing somehow that he himself knows all that is in the universe. No atheist can prove that God does not exist, though they seem to have an unfounded certainty -- a faith, shall we say -- that He does not exist. Skeptics, including atheists, claim to be people who rely on empirical evidence and proof, but they can offer no real proof that the theist is wrong.
Skepticism can be good but when it means reasoning backward from existing beliefs in order to exclude or to deny anything unknown or novel or unfamiliar is not in the least scientific. Skepticism is not good when it consists of knee-jerk scoffing at anything that does not fit within existing categories. That kind of skepticism is not healthy, but is presumptuous.
Some skeptics can be notoriously credulous when it comes to accepting at face value anything said by 'debunkers', official spokesmen, or whoever they regard as reliable authorities. But yet we know that we have been lied to and deceived in many instances by various authority figures; surely nobody would deny this.
Skepticism is useful when it is directed also at authority figures, and not just at those who hold unorthodox opinions.
Many people use the website 'Snopes' to try to discredit certain stories as hoaxes or 'crazy conspiracy theories.' That website is not an infallible source, and is rather blatantly biased in a liberal direction, yet many cite it as an unimpeachable source of truth. Wikipedia, which I cite occasionally, is likewise biased, and I take that into account. Trusting such sources shows credulity on the part of many self-professed skeptics.
Others take as gospel whatever their favorite TV talking head or blogger says about something. If Coulter or Beck say that ''birthers are nutjobs'' -- to mention another 'conspiracy theory' -- well, that settles it for some people.
There are many people who will not believe something until it becomes fashionable and acceptable to believe it. Sometimes the left and the right converge in believing in the same conspiracy theories (such as the 'Truthers') but they differ in their beliefs as to who is responsible. For the left, it is the old Bush/Cheney axis of Evil. For the right it is -- the Bush/Cheney axis of Evil.
Many, left and right, believe that there is a globalist cabal, trying to corral us into a New World Order. The left, of course, believes it's 'right-wing global capitalists' at the bottom of it, while it seems to the right that left-wing internationalists and Third World admirers are at the root of it. They are both right. Left and right converge when it comes to this globalist agenda. Both sides are complicit, working hand in glove towards the same ends, maybe wittingly, maybe not, but it's all coming together because factions on both sides desire it and are determined to create it.
But many still scoff at any talk of a globalist agenda.
It's all too easy to dismiss something by labeling it in a derisive and dismissive way: ''birthers'', ''truthers'' and the all-inclusive ''conspiracy-mongers''. Even the term ''conspiracy theory'' has become a condescending label which summons up images of paranoid fringe-types muttering to themselves.
A conspiracy is nothing more nor less than two or more people planning, and ultimately acting in concert towards some end. Usually this planning and colluding is done clandestinely for various reasons: it may be for fear of heavy-handed authorities, or, in the case of those in authority, for fear of ''the people'' rebelling against the plan.
And can anybody honestly believe that the very wealthy and powerful, who are used to exercising great power in both business and social circles, are content to sit quietly in the background and not use their wealth and power to attain their ends? Money does buy influence. The elites are used to having their way. They could hardly be content to passively wait for ''the people'' to determine the course of the country.
We all cynically accept that money buys influence, even with our supposedly representative system, and our supposedly open and transparent government.
As for the 'secret societies' that are so much discussed in this context, it's hard to believe that they are just a lot of powerful and influential people meeting to have a meal and shoot the breeze together. These groups are becoming quite open about their role in influencing policy; there is hardly any pretense of their being mere social clubs for the rich and powerful. In any case, there is often a public face, the exoteric side, that is all about harmless 'networking' and socializing, while the esoteric side stays behind closed doors, among the few.
I consider it far more prudent to be open-minded yet cautious. I don't believe everything I read or hear; none of us should, but neither should any presume we know all, and that everything is only what it appears on the surface. The world is a stranger and more complex place than that. And as far as human nature goes, ''the heart of man is deceitful above all things'', so watchfulness is always in order.
It's also worth remembering that wild speculations which may become 'conspiracy theories' flourish best in an atmosphere of secretiveness and deceit. At the very least, those in the media and in elected positions 'conspire' to keep much from us, and to distort and shade what truths they dispense to us.
The subject of conspiracy theories is a complex one, and I can't begin to do it justice in a blog post, so let me just offer some thoughts about the subject in general.
We are all familiar with certain popular conspiracy theories. I am sure we can all name several of them, such as the JFK assassination theories (multiple assassins, possible involvement of everybody from the various Mafia families to the CIA), the recent 'Truther' belief system, which believes there is a conspiracy to hide truth about 9/11. Then there are those who doubt that man has ever landed on the moon; the moon landing images were all created on a cheap set or in the California desert somewhere, so the story goes.
Then there are the UFO conspiracy theories, and the issue of 'chemtrails.'
These are seldom covered by the 'respectable' media, except in a derisive fashion.
A few years ago, talk-radio host and writer Michael Medved spent quite a bit of energy and time ridiculing and vilifying those who believed that a North American Union is in the works -- even though talk of it has been quite open, with North American summit meetings involving the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Still, some people seem determined to deride and discredit anyone who writes about it or believes the planned NAU is real.
Even today, half a century and more after the 'Communist scare' of the 1950s, even after documents have been released verifying that there were Communists in positions of power, and that there were Soviet agents who passed information to that government -- we still read in the dishonest media the assertion that the Communist conspiracy was all in the 'paranoid' minds of McCarthy and other right-wingers. Many people today believe that the Communist conspiracy was not real at all, only a pretext by McCarthy and others to deprive 'progressives' of their rights and freedoms.
Obviously there are conspiracies.
Our own country came into being as the result of what was actually a 'conspiracy' among English colonists.
The Venona Papers establish that there was a Communist conspiracy to subvert this country. Can anybody look at today's events and doubt that they succeeded to a great extent? The left of course celebrates their 'change', but still deny that any subversion by their side existed.
Not everything is random chance or coincidence, any more than everything is a conspiracy. The truth is somewhere in between.
Similarly, skeptics tell us that they don't 'believe in UFOs' when what they probably mean is that they don't believe in extraterrestrials visiting this planet in some kind of spacecraft. Of course there are Unidentified Flying Objects; many people see things in the skies that they can't identify with certainty. Some may be natural phenomena, some ordinary aircraft which are unrecognized as such. But to categorically state that there 'are no UFOs' is rather silly. There may not be any space aliens flying around our earth, but there are unidentified flying objects, whatever their origin.
It is facile to be skeptical for skepticism's sake, and while skepticism is a good thing to an extent, it can be closed-mindedness and arrogance, because it seems to assume that there are no mysteries in our world, no unknowns. Likewise, 'the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God', believing somehow that he himself knows all that is in the universe. No atheist can prove that God does not exist, though they seem to have an unfounded certainty -- a faith, shall we say -- that He does not exist. Skeptics, including atheists, claim to be people who rely on empirical evidence and proof, but they can offer no real proof that the theist is wrong.
Skepticism can be good but when it means reasoning backward from existing beliefs in order to exclude or to deny anything unknown or novel or unfamiliar is not in the least scientific. Skepticism is not good when it consists of knee-jerk scoffing at anything that does not fit within existing categories. That kind of skepticism is not healthy, but is presumptuous.
Some skeptics can be notoriously credulous when it comes to accepting at face value anything said by 'debunkers', official spokesmen, or whoever they regard as reliable authorities. But yet we know that we have been lied to and deceived in many instances by various authority figures; surely nobody would deny this.
Skepticism is useful when it is directed also at authority figures, and not just at those who hold unorthodox opinions.
Many people use the website 'Snopes' to try to discredit certain stories as hoaxes or 'crazy conspiracy theories.' That website is not an infallible source, and is rather blatantly biased in a liberal direction, yet many cite it as an unimpeachable source of truth. Wikipedia, which I cite occasionally, is likewise biased, and I take that into account. Trusting such sources shows credulity on the part of many self-professed skeptics.
Others take as gospel whatever their favorite TV talking head or blogger says about something. If Coulter or Beck say that ''birthers are nutjobs'' -- to mention another 'conspiracy theory' -- well, that settles it for some people.
There are many people who will not believe something until it becomes fashionable and acceptable to believe it. Sometimes the left and the right converge in believing in the same conspiracy theories (such as the 'Truthers') but they differ in their beliefs as to who is responsible. For the left, it is the old Bush/Cheney axis of Evil. For the right it is -- the Bush/Cheney axis of Evil.
Many, left and right, believe that there is a globalist cabal, trying to corral us into a New World Order. The left, of course, believes it's 'right-wing global capitalists' at the bottom of it, while it seems to the right that left-wing internationalists and Third World admirers are at the root of it. They are both right. Left and right converge when it comes to this globalist agenda. Both sides are complicit, working hand in glove towards the same ends, maybe wittingly, maybe not, but it's all coming together because factions on both sides desire it and are determined to create it.
But many still scoff at any talk of a globalist agenda.
It's all too easy to dismiss something by labeling it in a derisive and dismissive way: ''birthers'', ''truthers'' and the all-inclusive ''conspiracy-mongers''. Even the term ''conspiracy theory'' has become a condescending label which summons up images of paranoid fringe-types muttering to themselves.
A conspiracy is nothing more nor less than two or more people planning, and ultimately acting in concert towards some end. Usually this planning and colluding is done clandestinely for various reasons: it may be for fear of heavy-handed authorities, or, in the case of those in authority, for fear of ''the people'' rebelling against the plan.
And can anybody honestly believe that the very wealthy and powerful, who are used to exercising great power in both business and social circles, are content to sit quietly in the background and not use their wealth and power to attain their ends? Money does buy influence. The elites are used to having their way. They could hardly be content to passively wait for ''the people'' to determine the course of the country.
We all cynically accept that money buys influence, even with our supposedly representative system, and our supposedly open and transparent government.
As for the 'secret societies' that are so much discussed in this context, it's hard to believe that they are just a lot of powerful and influential people meeting to have a meal and shoot the breeze together. These groups are becoming quite open about their role in influencing policy; there is hardly any pretense of their being mere social clubs for the rich and powerful. In any case, there is often a public face, the exoteric side, that is all about harmless 'networking' and socializing, while the esoteric side stays behind closed doors, among the few.
I consider it far more prudent to be open-minded yet cautious. I don't believe everything I read or hear; none of us should, but neither should any presume we know all, and that everything is only what it appears on the surface. The world is a stranger and more complex place than that. And as far as human nature goes, ''the heart of man is deceitful above all things'', so watchfulness is always in order.
It's also worth remembering that wild speculations which may become 'conspiracy theories' flourish best in an atmosphere of secretiveness and deceit. At the very least, those in the media and in elected positions 'conspire' to keep much from us, and to distort and shade what truths they dispense to us.
Labels: Biased Media, Conspiracy Theories, Government Secrecy, Right Wing, Skepticism
0 comment Saturday, May 10, 2014 | admin
In an earlier blog post I wrote about how Hollywood began pushing the politically correct agenda after the middle of the last century. The propaganda really was stepped up around that time, but in looking through some of the images from older movies and magazines, it's obvious that it was already there in incipient form, and just intensified as the 20th century moved along.
The 'forbidden love' storyline was a popular one back in the silent film era. For example, in the above film.
The same theme of 'forbidden love' is found in the movie The Bitter Tea of General Yen, and just as in the above movie, a European-descended actor plays an Asian man. In Broken Blossoms, Richard Barthelmess played the Chinese man, and in 'The Bitter Tea of General Yen', the title character was played by a Swedish actor, Nils Asther.
Notice the somewhat lurid nature of the poster.
Another film, 'The Pagan' has another European-descended actor, Ramon Novarro, (born in Mexico, but European in appearance) playing a mixed-race Polynesian/White man. In this case, though, the love interest is another half White/half Polynesian character. This movie, like Broken Blossoms, also has a villainous White male character, but in The Pagan, the White villain is also Christian. So you get two for the price of one.
The Pagan is also about the conflict between the idealized 'carefree' culture of the Polynesians and the corrupt ways of Whites. Of course the romanticized Eden of pagan Polynesia is the winner. So the Rousseauian 'noble savage' image was current in the 1920s just as it is now.
Jump ahead a few decades, to 1957, and we have this movie.
The poster mentions the 'forbidden love' storyline, and the movie has lots of that; all the main characters carry on 'forbidden' affairs. Marlon Brando's character, as well as Red Buttons' and James Garner's characters all marry Japanese girls. And Brando's spurned (White) fiancee takes up with a Japanese kabuki actor -- with the oddly-cast Ricardo Montalban playing the actor. He looks particularly unconvincing as a Japanese man; his features are all wrong. His nose is too prominent, and his facial structure just does not look Japanese. But of course race is merely a social construct, isn't it?
By the time Sayonara was released, the multicultural PC propaganda was shifting into high gear. Since then, even in the last few years, it's increased to the point of being ubiquitous and more intense, more insistent, and more open. It's as though they don't even feel the need to disguise it or soft-pedal it. It's blatant and heavy-handed.
But when we stop and consider just how long these ideas have been promoted, it impresses on us just how firmly embedded some of these ideas are in our society.
I continue to try to discover why so many of our people have absorbed these messages like sponges. It seems there is some kind of deep-seated need to idealize others. Most of us, left and right, feel disillusioned with the world we live in, and many people believe that there was some kind of golden age, before we became civlized, in which everybody lived like happy children in a lush Eden, where nobody had to toil or struggle. Everybody just enjoyed life and lived spontaneously and freely. There is some kind of utopian longing for a simple and childlike world. The left in particular idealizes the primitive and even what we would (in non-PC fashion) call the 'savage' way.
I've been accused at times of idealizing the past, and perhaps to some extent I do, but in no way do I claim that any era was perfect or idyllic, as many true utopians do. I can see the past with its flaws, warts and all, and weigh that against the good. On balance there was more good than bad. But those who idealize exotic cultures and peoples, and eras which are only dimly known by today's people, are idealizing something that they have only the slightest knowledge of, or perhaps idealizing something strictly of their own invention.
The myth of the golden age of noble savagery seems to be cherished by many Western White people, even some on the far right, however, they idealize the pre-civilized era in Europe.
Perhaps some of the pull towards mingling with the idealized ''others'' is a misguided attempt to return to some mythical paradise where there is no complicated civilization and above all, no Christianity to say 'Thou shalt not.'
The real truth is that this Edenic 'golden age' everybody seems to long for was a time when life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' And this is what our future is to be if we succumb to the urge to try to return to "noble" savagery.
The 'forbidden love' storyline was a popular one back in the silent film era. For example, in the above film.The same theme of 'forbidden love' is found in the movie The Bitter Tea of General Yen, and just as in the above movie, a European-descended actor plays an Asian man. In Broken Blossoms, Richard Barthelmess played the Chinese man, and in 'The Bitter Tea of General Yen', the title character was played by a Swedish actor, Nils Asther.
Notice the somewhat lurid nature of the poster.
Another film, 'The Pagan' has another European-descended actor, Ramon Novarro, (born in Mexico, but European in appearance) playing a mixed-race Polynesian/White man. In this case, though, the love interest is another half White/half Polynesian character. This movie, like Broken Blossoms, also has a villainous White male character, but in The Pagan, the White villain is also Christian. So you get two for the price of one.
The Pagan is also about the conflict between the idealized 'carefree' culture of the Polynesians and the corrupt ways of Whites. Of course the romanticized Eden of pagan Polynesia is the winner. So the Rousseauian 'noble savage' image was current in the 1920s just as it is now.
Jump ahead a few decades, to 1957, and we have this movie.
The poster mentions the 'forbidden love' storyline, and the movie has lots of that; all the main characters carry on 'forbidden' affairs. Marlon Brando's character, as well as Red Buttons' and James Garner's characters all marry Japanese girls. And Brando's spurned (White) fiancee takes up with a Japanese kabuki actor -- with the oddly-cast Ricardo Montalban playing the actor. He looks particularly unconvincing as a Japanese man; his features are all wrong. His nose is too prominent, and his facial structure just does not look Japanese. But of course race is merely a social construct, isn't it?
By the time Sayonara was released, the multicultural PC propaganda was shifting into high gear. Since then, even in the last few years, it's increased to the point of being ubiquitous and more intense, more insistent, and more open. It's as though they don't even feel the need to disguise it or soft-pedal it. It's blatant and heavy-handed.
But when we stop and consider just how long these ideas have been promoted, it impresses on us just how firmly embedded some of these ideas are in our society.
I continue to try to discover why so many of our people have absorbed these messages like sponges. It seems there is some kind of deep-seated need to idealize others. Most of us, left and right, feel disillusioned with the world we live in, and many people believe that there was some kind of golden age, before we became civlized, in which everybody lived like happy children in a lush Eden, where nobody had to toil or struggle. Everybody just enjoyed life and lived spontaneously and freely. There is some kind of utopian longing for a simple and childlike world. The left in particular idealizes the primitive and even what we would (in non-PC fashion) call the 'savage' way.
I've been accused at times of idealizing the past, and perhaps to some extent I do, but in no way do I claim that any era was perfect or idyllic, as many true utopians do. I can see the past with its flaws, warts and all, and weigh that against the good. On balance there was more good than bad. But those who idealize exotic cultures and peoples, and eras which are only dimly known by today's people, are idealizing something that they have only the slightest knowledge of, or perhaps idealizing something strictly of their own invention.
The myth of the golden age of noble savagery seems to be cherished by many Western White people, even some on the far right, however, they idealize the pre-civilized era in Europe.
Perhaps some of the pull towards mingling with the idealized ''others'' is a misguided attempt to return to some mythical paradise where there is no complicated civilization and above all, no Christianity to say 'Thou shalt not.'
The real truth is that this Edenic 'golden age' everybody seems to long for was a time when life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' And this is what our future is to be if we succumb to the urge to try to return to "noble" savagery.
Labels: Biased Media, Hollywood, Multiculturalism, Propaganda, Social Engineering