PC bollocks

When Hollywood uses its lock on entertainment to disseminate politically correct propaganda is when we the movie goers need to vote with our feet.
Lying, misrepresentation and charlatanism is what defines snake-oil salesmen, and in this vein it appears that the pc chatteratti of Hollywood are little more than carpetbaggers.

Members of the entertainment industry elite, according to Mamet, occupy two entirely distinct moral universes. Celebrities spend most of the waking hours pursuing their own self-interests, looking for “any opportunity to earn more with less expenditure of effort and in more congenial circumstances”. That is to say, they work the free market for all it is worth and yet, as Mamet confesses about his own long-time double standards, rarely question the “tribal assumption that Capitalism was bad”. They crusade for the state to redistribute the wealth of others as they themselves minimize their own taxation and carry on amassing private fortunes

Thank goodness for heavyweights like Clint Eastwood.
I for one will not be seeing this movie.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100182709/hollywood-fracks-up/

Hubris personified

A tragic but I think true reflection on the sad personalities of two prominent Western leaders. It might go some way to explain how and why our civilisation in in the process of tanking.

Gillard's feminine mystique

by Steve Kates

October 10, 2012

---

It is only now, in watching the Prime Minister in her latest episode with Peter Slipper, that it has occurred to me that, when she goes into political battle, she carries with her a magic gender shield so that no matter what anyone says about her policies or incompetence, all she hears is ‘You're useless because you're a woman’. No one actually ever thinks it or certainly ever says it, but that is what she always transmutes every form of criticism into so that nothing is personal, everything is ideological, and the ideology is some antique disdain for women that was already out of date in the 1960s.

---

For someone such as myself, who felt as strongly and positively about Margaret Thatcher as I did about Ronald Reagan, the notion that behind my disgust at the policies of the astonishingly incompetent Prime Minister that Gillard has proven to be are attitudes based on her sex is both insulting and ridiculous. But for her such beliefs are a talisman that psychologically protects her from every criticism, since she never has to take them seriously. To her, they are based on biological facts not on her personal deficiencies and incompetence.
There must be no end of such people in politics. It now strikes me that Obama is of a similar kind, transmuting political criticism into a statement on race. The colour of his skin provides a psychological shield against taking criticisms to heart, since such criticisms are, in his mind, racially based and not on political disagreement.
The question then is what is one to do to convince such people that what is being said about them is unrelated to various existentially biological facts but to their political decisions. And it may turn out that there is nothing that can be done. But if so, it is a warning to us that to elect people such as Gillard or Obama to high office carries the risk that they are incapable of responding to normal political debate since they are incapable of interpreting criticism as based on policy difference unrelated to biology.
They will therefore never respond to the criticisms they receive in the way a person - male or female, black or white - would if they were in a similar position without such beliefs about others. This will, moreover, only affect politicians on the left of the ideological divide since the right has by and largeentirely discarded categorisation by race or gender. They are, in fact, so far outside the normal thought processes of the right that it has become almost impossible to engage in debate with such people. Simply put, we are never quite capable of understanding why they are so resistant to the criticisms we make.
The inflexibility of both Gillard and Obama - over the NBN or boat people here in Australia or over health care and the budget in the US - means they plough on relentlessly in the face of innumerable facts and arguments that demonstrate how wrong such policies are. They don't listen, they are incapable of listening, because they disregard all criticisms as based on dislike of women in the one case or of black people in the other. It is simply not so, but that is how they think because that is what they desperately want to believe

Pass it on

Another worthy Bill Muehlenberg blog.
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/10/05/pro-death-madness/

Sanity in an insane world

Three cheers for the Italians. It seems that the medical practitioners of Italy have overwhelmingly chosen a culture of life over the culture of death. Read this article:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/italys_conscientious_doctors

I have long wanted to visit Italy because of the wonderful art there. perhaps living there would not be so bad. It seems it is one of the few countries in the Western world that still recognises babies as human beings. Something I am quite sure pleases the big guy.
Look out for an upsurge in Italy's fortunes.

Apostacy in the Church

An Anglican 'priest', Dr. George Armstrong, advances the cause of a one-world religion in New Zealand. Bill Muehlenberg has some scathing things to say about 'wolves amongst the flock'. This is a brief excerpt:

His concluding words are as shocking as any he has uttered: “I can expect a teacup storm to greet ideas like those expressed here. But these ideas will be seen by most readers, many Christians among them, who have persisted in reading this far, as simply the common sense of our age. A United Religions is going to have to catch up with and work alongside a United Nations.”

There you go: one-world religion to match a one-world government. Everything the enemies of biblical Christianity have ever wished for. Destroy any differences and enforce a dumbed-down uniformity of beliefs and practices. Forget the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Forget the truth claims of Christianity. Forget the many warnings about concentrated power corrupting absolutely.

This guy is just an utterly deluded secular humanist who still wears a collar. He is a wolf who has denied the very heart of biblical Christianity, and has proven that heretics and apostates are running riot in our churches. Why his church allows him to remain, spewing out this poison, is beyond me.
 

The full article can be viewed here:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/10/04/yet-another-vicious-wolf/

Post script

With reference to my previous blog this extract further develops my argument:

From the strength of his field experience in Aboriginal Australia, Mexico, India and Sri Lanka, he argued that the Western middle classes who romanticised tribal culture only did so because they had never experienced the real thing. They never understood the appeal of modernity to those locked within tribal cultures:

Whether we are talking about Indian untouchables in Calcutta, or farmers in Thailand, or peasants in Spain, all of these people want to enter the modern world and are usually quite happy to jettison the crippling cultural baggage which holds them back. Instead, the ideological defence of local and backward cultures—the promotion of the doctrine of “my culture, right or wrong”—has overwhelmingly been undertaken by radicalised Western middle-classes, on behalf of an ethnic clientèle which may or may not approve their efforts, driven by a masochistic contempt for their Western heritage, and almost as often for the lands of their birth as well.

......................................................

Roger also wrote a damaging critique of the anthropologists who brought this about. Titled “The Rise of the Anthropologue” (Encounter, December 1986) it argued that while early anthropologists had studied tribal life as disinterested observers, by the 1980s the “anthropologues” had ulterior motives, of either a political or salvationist kind, seeking means of personal redemption or models for their own political or ideological hopes. Above all, they were afflicted with a dreadful piety:

Like that prototypical anthropologue, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, they are driven by a deep emotional necessity to dignify everything in the pre-industrial world. The laughable must be made grave; the repellent must be made somehow endearing; and the downright revolting must be swathed in a language so latinate and extraordinary that it is often hard to know exactly what is going on. Words like sacred, sacral and ritualistic may be called on to produce a vaguely sanctifying effect; and if this is successful, then plain speaking about African tribal life will always seem tasteless, and usually irreverent as well.

The article reserved its most scathing criticisms for the French author Claude Levi-Strauss and his celebrated work The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a Science of Mythology (trans. 1970). It was a study of myths but, instead of the science of the subtitle, Levi-Strauss disarmingly announced that it too should be regarded as mythology, more like a piece of music, in fact an “overture” to its own “confused and indigestible pages”. Roger observed that this kind of anthropology could all too easily be regarded as little more than “the telling of tales about the tales other people tell”. According to the rules of this game, there could be no such a thing as a false tale; nor could research that was successful be distinguished from research that had failed. Once this was accepted, he said, anthropology became an intellectual disaster zone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to the future.

Melanie Phillip's touches on a fantasy indulged in by the anti-human-progress-at-any-cost fanatics also known as NIMBY's (not-in-my-back-yard). The fantasy is that all would be so much better if we could go back to a more bucolic period of history. A 'pre-capitalistic' time where we all lived in village communities and enjoyed bartering with one another and ' good,honest work' etc etc...blah blah blah.

But life in the Middle Ages wasn’t a rural idyll of dancing round maypoles, it was marked by ignorance, savagery and terrible poverty and hardship.

The Industrial Revolution, in turn, wasn’t a hell of harsh-faced bosses and oppressed workers, but happened to be the engine of progress and modernity that produced the affluence we all enjoy today.

 The idea that industrialists are heartless tyrants and workers are helpless victims is, frankly, a fantasy that belongs to crude Left-wing agit-prop.  It sits particularly ill with a Britain plagued by irresponsible trades union activity, and where the Mayor of London recently resorted to bribing railway workers to induce them to call off strike action.
...............................................................................................................................................
In today’s Britain, objectivity has given way to emotion. Reality has been replaced by the creative imagination. Truth has been supplanted by wishful thinking. Anyone who dissents from any of these orthodoxies is treated as a pariah.
 

 In truth, those who believe that primitive peoples living in the jungles and undiscovered 'beauty spots' of our world are better off, have never themselves lived such a life and hold an overly romanticised perspective on struggle. These are people who wish to return us to some pre-industrial lifestyle that never existed, and they hope to do it by making the means of modern industrial development, i.e. electricity and fossil fuels, so expensive and so vilified that we cut back to the bare minimum. They postulate that we can replace these methods with 'clean energy', but aside form the idiotic few who actually believe such a fantasy the real 'wide-boys' of this movement have something a lot more sinister at heart.

This is the result of the long march through the institutions, and that was always a quest for power, for domination of the masses by the elite. I agree with Vaclav Havel that the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare is not really about 'sustainable living' as much as it is about who rules.

Lenin's 'useful idiots' who command the organs of communication and entertainment are the megaphones for a new world order and it will not be the idyllic mayflower pole that stands as its symbol.

Think hammer and sickle and what that might mean to your worldview!