“…Hollywood had its Golden Age, back when well-written scripts reflected well-developed, multifaceted characters. Today, Tinseltown is a monolithic, left-liberal automaton, marching in thematic unison, and subjecting the viewer to the same impoverished, error-riddled, preachy themes.
The evidence is in. Activism and abreaction have replaced acting, and sermons have supplanted stories in the repertoire of the pretty, pea-brained community.
A giant digit wagging above a captive audience: that’s Hollywood.
The conservative-minded masochist comes to the cinema fully prepared to confront and forfeit his “fascist” sympathies. For example, in the 2008 flick “Conspiracy,” the battle is between the forces of absolute evil and pure good, in the border state of another “evil” governor.
Representing the open-border sensibility is Val Kilmer, a superhuman, super-good, Iraq war veteran. Standing in for the border-control, stark-raving crazies is an all-American, Arian, gang of war-profiteering developers.
Yet, in book-after-book, the “conservative” case against Hollywood consists, mainly, in reiterating the facts of this faction’s liberalism. Unless a protagonist is against G-d or for abortion, conservatives are culturally deaf to the piffle spewed by the pea-brained community.
What do I mean?
On a meta-level, Hollywood’s “angels and demons” productions have helped create a parallel universe willingly inhabited by our countrymen, conservative and liberal alike.
Consider the gender junk percepts. Did not the commentariat, conservatives and liberals, come together over Sen. Rick Santorum’s so-called archaic ideas on women in the fighting force? …”
Is balance so much to ask for in the Trayvon Martin case? By balance I do not mean “Fair and Balanced” a la Fox News, or Andy Cooper’s “Keeping them Honest” deal.
What I mean is this: The deceased youth, Martin, appears to have been targeted unfairly. The facts of the shooting should be reviewed impartially. But for every Trayvon victimized by an Hispanic (if this is indeed the case), thousands of whites are brutalized by a sinecured black, criminal class, members of whom never get called out for what are crimes rooted in racial hatred.
Courtesy of “Suicide of a Superpower” come the FBI’s crime figures for 2007: “Blacks committed 433,934 violent crimes against whites, eight times as many as the 55,685 that whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black-on-white, with 14,000 assaults on white women by African American males in 2007. Not one case of white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.” (Page 243.)
Not so long ago, the slaughtering of twenty-one-year-old Channon Christian and twenty-three-year-old Hugh Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee, in 2007, was dismissed as a racially neutral, garden-variety murder and rape.
Read my description of the crime in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and explain to me how white America can thus forsake its children by accepting the racial innocence of their defilers:
Five blacks—four men and a woman—anally raped Hugh, then shot him to death, wrapped his body in bedding, soaked it in gasoline and set it alight. He was the lucky one. Channon, his fair and fragile-looking friend, was repeatedly gang raped by the four men—vaginally, anally and orally. Before she died, her murderers poured a household cleaner down her throat, in an effort to cleanse away DNA. She was left to die, either from the bleeding caused “by the tearing,” or from asphyxiation. Knoxville officials would not say. She was then stuffed in a garbage can like trash. White trash. (pp. 35-36)
There are quite a few like it every year. Here’s one. Here is another. And still another. Want more? You got it. The name of the black rapist and killer of an 85-year-old lady: Tyrone Dale David. Oh, but this wasn’t racial subjugation, only sexual attraction, right? Yeah, right.
An even treatment of the Trayvon travesty would recognize and dignify the reality of crime in this country, and the daily black-on-white brutality, much of it rooted in a deep racial hatred, animus nurtured by the media and the political and academic cognoscenti.
UPDATE I: In reply to a Facebook reader: The racial extravaganza—show of brute force from race hustlers—is most certainly an issue here. Thus, to encourage an examination of the facts of the case, sans hysteria, one has to discount the circus. To do that, one has to discuss the reality of crime; who, on aggregate, brutalizes who in this country. To do that, you have to dispense with the idea that blacks are habitually victimized. They are not. Then you go on to deal with the offender in this case as an atypical offender.
UPDATE II (March 24): A doff of the hat to our reader for providing information that has emerged since Zimmerman’s public vilification began. It confirms that all information has to be gathered and processed before public pronunciations are made:
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman: MyFoxTAMPABAY.com
“The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: ‘help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,” he said.
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as “John,” and didn’t not want to be shown on camera.
His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman’s claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.
“When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
Purely from an aesthetic point of view, Julianne Moore has no business playing Sarah Palin. I thought the idea of film was mimicry—be as true as possible to the reality portrayed (that was, admittedly, before activism replaced acting). Moore is unattractive, an attractive version of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York.
Moore, moreover, looks like she suffers Flat Head Syndrome or Plagiocephaly. The head at the back is flat, the forehead slopes, the mouth—the entire face—is unbelievably weak. The eyes are lifeless. The hair is okay. That’s all. As for her acting; she’s merely passable.
Whatever your opinion of Sarah Palin, it is undeniable that she is a beauty, who has become better looking with age. Her head and face are beautifully shaped. Her jaw is well-sculpted. Her brow is lovely. The nose: wonderful; the eyes alive. I’m not a fan of her political appearances, but in physicality, Palin is stunning. What’s more, hers is a strong face. Moore’s is a weak mug.
See for yourself.
The beauty:
And the beast:
UPDATE I (March 15): George, about the linked tribute to Moore’s eyes (she ain’t a beautiful woman): This is an airbrushed, well made-up image. Most women can look good under photo-shop. And if you want the greenest, most glorious eyes that never needed falsies and eye-shadow, I would think Vivien Leigh was your lady. Here is that goddess in the masterpiece, “Gone With the Wind”:
I took it down to Moore’s cranium; her badly shaped head and weak face. The skin is nothing to write home about either. Sarah has a glorious skin. You can scrub Palin’s face clean, and yes, as all woman who wear make-up will tell you—you will not recognize her. But you’ll still see a fine bone structure. Moore happens to be a scumbag, who made such disparaging comments about Palin’s vacuity that one would think she, Moore, were some brainiac herself. Palin has mastered the intricacies of energy production and policy, to which I have always thought she should have stuck. Moore is a left-liberal scumbag who can’t think beyond leftist sloganeering. Nothing like her insipid face to remind one why Hollywood left-liberals are always and everywhere the enemy. On the other hand, Kardashian is a plain, apolitical idiot, but the girl has wonderful eyes, and glorious hair and skin. Just being objective about aesthetics here.
What is wrong with the men on this blog? Can’t you see the passion and life in the eyes of the two, non-Moore women? Can’t you see the dead, fish-eyes of The Moore?
UPDATE II: Posted below is a prime example of The Cranium. The chin; that forehead. Oy! Awful!
UPDATE III (March 16): My thoughts EXACTLY, Nick! Jodie Foster is a classic beauty and a good actress. Those strong featured; the eyes. To die for. Have you seen her in “The Brave One”? Unbelievable.
Left-liberalism is illiberal. It doesn’t respect individual liberties, preferring that a custodial managerial class get to delimit and limit individual rights in the interests of the so-called greater good. Much like fascism, the essence of democracy is Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “general will,” a “national purpose” that ought to be implemented by an all-powerful state. (Voltaire, a rather cleverer Frenchman, said that Rousseau is to the philosopher as the ape is to man.)
It thus comes as no surprise to discover that California ran so robust a program of forced sterilization in the 1930s and beyond—that the Nazi Party reached out for the state’s advice (and literature, in particular a book titled, “Sterilization and Human Betterment”). Both California’s Courts and the president of Stanford University supported the practice.
Also telling is the fact that, as CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen documents below,, California has yet to make restitution to the victims. On the other hand, a historically red state like North Carolina has compensated its far fewer victims.
