Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict
by Eric Rudolph
Copyright 2008, Eric R. Rudolph
All rights reserved.
I've explored the arguments for and against abortion as conservatives and egalitarians battle one another for control of the American system. And I've discussed the importance of mass-man in the political equation today. Because mass-man’s opinion is now the basis of political power, what both conservatives and egalitarians are really fighting for is the power to “pump” their opinions into the masses. The herd is sound sensitive: He who has the loudest voice controls the masses. In the battle for the big bullhorn, conservatives have suffered abject defeat. Over the past seventy years conservative opinion has been pushed out of the mainstream and into the pamphlet, book, small radio and cable television program. Here, the programming, for the most part, is second rate, and amounts to preaching to an ever shrinking choir. On the other side, egalitarians now control the most powerful means of shaping public opinion in the history of the world- Hollywood films, television, and pop-music. With these Medias they are creating the world in their image and slowly extirpating the conservative opposition.
As competent students of human nature, the egalitarians know that mass-man is not necessarily searching for an agenda. He doesn't want to be preached to. He doesn't toss and turn in his bed at night wondering about the “truth.” You won't find him in the philosophy or religion section of your local library reading Kant or Aquinas. What mass-man wants is entertainment, he wants his circuses. This is why the popular culture is so effective as a tool of indoctrination. Even though the bulk of films today contain a definite message, it is always sandwiched between the staple of entertainment. If a film, song, or show doesn't entertain him, mass-man will not sit long enough to have an opinion pumped into him. While conservatives continue to preach to their shrinking choirs, the masters of the media continue to swallow the bulk of each new generation through entertainment.
Don't misunderstand me; the pop-culture industry is primarily about entertainment. When a film is made, a song is written, or a television show is piloted, the first question asked is will it keep the audience in their seats. However, for those who want to deliver a message, the pop culture Medias are second to none. As idealists, egalitarians naturally gravitate toward those mediums- universities, law, government, media- that offer them the best chance to spread their beliefs. The pop-culture is a natural fit, and is the best example of the Establishment synthesis between Economic Man epicureanism and egalitarian idealism. The power of the mediums themselves account for their success in pumping opinions into mass-man.
There has never been anything quite like the pop-culture in history. The motion picture has created a new type of man, one that lives in a virtual universe, wherein he filters reality through the fantasy world of television and films. Several “social scientists” have written about this phenomenon. The French lefty Jean Baudrillard, for instance, says the average westerner today lives in a “hyper reality created by the media.” What Baudrillard means is that when a person spends six hours every day watching the stories of television and movies these images become more real to him than his real life. He starts to interpret reality by reference to the stories and themes he sees on television and in the movies. You often hear this when watching news coverage of some event. The reporter asks an eye witness to the event what has happened, and the person responds, “Well, it was like something on TV. All of a sudden…” The average American today is so saturated with the pop culture he has no conception of the world outside the one issued to him through his television set.
This phenomenon is also clearly seen when discussing the issues of the day with mass-man. Although he watches television and movies for entertainment, mass-man also gets his opinions on politics through the pop culture. But he is unaware that he is being indoctrinated with certain opinions because he has no other opinions to compare them with. And since he has had no other opinions articulated for him, mass-man tends to assume that there are no other opinions except those expressed in the movies he watches. Thus the purveyors of pop-culture hold tremendous power. They can change public opinion, and eventually change the social and political and cultural trajectories of the western world.
During the Middle Ages the Church realized that sermons put the average peasant to sleep. But if the gospel was dramatized for him through statuary and plays, the basic message got through. Compare the Gothic statuary and the passion plays to Schindler’s List or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. No play, statute, sermon, lecture or political speech can compare to the power of film. The movies a man has seen, the television shows he has watched, the pop-musicians he has idolized will influence his opinions far more than any politician, or preacher, or parent.
Think seriously on the issue, and you will see that Steven Spielberg will, in the long term, have more influence on the culture than George W. Bush. For the opinions that most Americans will have about George W. Bush and his policies will be shaped by the Steven Spielberges of the world. Similarly, the average person's opinions of Richard Nixon today were determined by the masters in the media. For almost seven years Nixon was president of the most powerful nation on Earth, but he was no match for the Washington Post, The New York Times, Bob Woodward and the producers of All The President’s Men. Nixon’s legacy belongs to them. They decided what Americans believe about Richard Nixon. It is the same with any other public figure.
Question the man in the street about his “opinions,” and you will discover that all were pumped into him by movies, television, and pop-music. Mass-man is living a virtual existence, as if he were one of the characters in the movies he spends so much of his time watching. And the amount of time the average man spends in front of the television increases every year. Supplement his time in front of the television with the Internet, and you have a programmed myrmidon. (Notice, the popular sites on the internet offer the same mindless stupidity as television-wrestling, pornography, vapid Hollywood gossip sites.)
The pop-culture now sets the long term agenda for the entire Western world. Very few Americans voluntarily spend six hours every day reading, studying-listening to preachers, to politicians, to teachers. The institutions of society take their cue from the pop-culture. The pop-culture shapes the opinions of mass-man. The politician relies upon popular support for his power, so he enacts laws that are consistent with the opinions of his constituents. No political party can stand in defiance of popular opinion for too long.
The war in Iraq is an excellent example of how the leftist media dominates the American system. As I wrote in “Pyrrhic Victories: The Problems With American Policy in Iraq,” the masters of the media did not give George W. Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq. Representing the Economic Man half of the American Establishment, Bush and his neo-conservative advisors were betting everything on quickly pacifying the Iraqis after a month long war, without having to get “consensus,” which is a code word for the approval of the media. In other words, they were taking the country out for a spin without their daddy's permission, hoping that they could get it back in the garage before he came home. But their plan failed and an insurrection developed- they got pulled over by the cops who then called their daddy. With their control of the media, the egalitarians have gradually turned the American people against the war. They are now punishing Bush and his neo-cons for joyriding with their country. Although after 9-11 Bush had temporary possession of popular support, the herd belongs to the masters of the media. Politicians have short term power, the media have long term power. The current relationship between politicians in the Western world and the media is almost exactly analogous to the relationship between the kings of Europe and the Church during the Gothic period. The kings held power in a climate of opinion controlled by the Church.
People mistake the lag time between the creation of an opinion and its eventual enactment into law for actual political opposition in our society. The lag time is caused partly by the checks and balances in the United States system of government, and partly because most voters in any election are over forty-five years of age. Put simply, the opinions being pumped into teenagers by the media today will have to wait another twenty years or so before they are fully enacted into law. Right now we are living under laws shaped by the opinions of the last of the W.W.II generation and the baby boom generation. After the W.W.II generation passes on, public opinion will be balanced between the baby boomers and generation Xers. The recent election of Barack Obama is evidence that a major generational shift is underway.
Leftist egalitarians absolutely dominate the big media. They also control mainstream academia. Between Hollywood and academia, opinion as issued to the masses is almost exclusively egalitarian. The pop-culture plays the key role in shaping mass-man’s opinions. It pumps the opinions into him, and if he goes on to college, his leftist professors will articulate these opinions and give them context. The pop-culture gives him his religious experience, so to speak ; the university professor will then give him his theology.
Conservatives, on the other hand, control only a few second-rate cable channels and several talk radio programs. The rest is print media, some churches, and a handful of high-dollar private colleges. And all these conservative media defer to the larger leftist agenda. The Left sets the agenda of the nation, and the Right tries to slow it down. That is the basic formula of American politics.
Every time I hear some media pundit dismiss the pop-culture’s influence on the average American, I have to contain my laughter. Hollywood not only influences mass-man’s opinions, it is his chief influence. Emotion has always been stronger than reason in history. Any perceptive teacher, preacher, priest, or filmmaker knows this: If you want to influence a man's beliefs, you must touch him emotionally, not intellectually. A good sermon elicits an emotional response. The core of any faith, for example, is religious feeling. Doctrine comes later, or not at all. The Great Awakenings of colonial America are examples of the American religious experience. The legacy of the Great Awakenings is still seen today in the traditional “aisle walk” and the annual “revival.” Most Christians saved by this experience barely have a grasp of Christian theology, very few have read their Bible all the way through, and even fewer have heard of John Wesley, John Calvin, or the Great Awakenings. In their minds, the emotional experience of salvation during their “aisle walk” is what makes them a Christian. So it is with many other facets of life- it is an emotional experience.
Every “good” movie must have an emotional impact on the audience. If it's a cause film, it must be organized as a simple morality tale. It must have heroes and villains. It doesn't matter if the writer or director distorts historical fact. The audience is not going to go down to the library after the show to see if what it just saw is factual. What is important is whether the story causes the audience to love the hero and hate the villain. A movie hits its mark when the audience cries, laughs, cheers, gets angry, squirms with fear, or fumes with hate.
As a medium the motion picture is second to none in producing an emotional experience. Statues, paintings, and pictures are plastic and motionless. One's imagination must transform the printed word. And plays are obvious caricatures. But with high quality actors, the best special effects, and good editing, the motion picture creates an alternate reality that is accessible to even the most unimaginative person. The motion picture is by far the most powerful of the pop-culture media. Hollywood movies give mass-man his religious feeling, his core world view. Television shows generally have smaller budgets, they have less time to shoot, and on the whole, the actors are not the best quality. And although very influential on teenagers, pop-music lacks the visual power of film. Humans are primarily visual creatures. Pop-music tends to wear off as mass-man ages. Therefore, as a shaper of opinions, the filmmaker has replaced the father, mother, teacher, preacher, aisle walk, passion play, statue, book, or newspaper.
In Hollywood, the parameters of Establishment thought are strictly observed. The audience is treated to either the hedonistic values of Economic Man, or it gets a left-wing morality tale. Usually there is a mix of the two- the synthesis. A movie that purports to be “serious” will be heavily freighted with leftist social-political commentary. A film that is targeted at mouth-breathers will stick closer to mindless sex and violence. Hollywood has absolutely no room for conservative opinion. Because mass-man gets his core opinions from Hollywood, he comes to believe that there are only two ideas in the world- Economic Man and egalitarian idealism.
A popular Hollywood theme has the movie's hero struggling with his inclinations toward Economic Man, but then after a moral crisis, he gets a social conscience and adopts the requirements of egalitarian values. These are the two acceptable poles of behavior : It's permissible to be a money-grubbing vulgarian ; however, if you want to be a “good man,” you must get a “social conscience” and further some left-wing cause. In Wall Street, Charlie Sheen’s struggling stockbroker wants to become an Economic Man like Wall Street tycoon Gordon Gecko. But in order to reach that pinnacle, he must engage in insider trading and sell out his father's union to Gecko’s schemes. But his social conscience won't let him, so he turns state's evidence on Gecko and saves his father's blue collar buddies from the unemployment line. Or, our hero is Richard Gere’s ruthless corporate raider in Pretty Woman, the quintessential Economic Man. Under the influence of Julia Roberts’ happy hooker, he finds love and a social conscience, deciding to save companies and workers instead of liquidating them for cash. Or the hero is Bruce Willis’ hard bitten morally ambivalent professional soldier in Tears of the Sun. Called upon to rescue only westerners in a war torn African country, he ends up defying the racist orders of his bourgeois superiors and decides to rescue the African natives too. Or he's Leonardo DiCaprio’s Afrikaans mercenary out to make a buck off the “Kafirs” in Blood Diamond. Instead of exploiting the poor natives, he ends up helping an African save his family. Sometimes neither Economic Man nor egalitarian idealism comes out on top. The two ideas meet together in a tempestuous love affair. In The Way We Were Barbara Streisand’s idealistic young communist falls in love with Robert Redford’s hedonistic rich boy, Hubble. Streisand’s character is high-minded and uncompromising and cannot stand Hubble’s indifference to the “serious” issues of the day, such as supporting Stalin’s Russia. But in between their frequent breakups, they find love and memories.
Films with heavy ideological content have an exclusively leftist message. Hollywood shows its bias in the films it chooses to award Oscars to. Many of these films are not crowd pleasers, they don’t pull down the big bucks. They are seminars for the smarter set. Despite its claims to explore the grey areas in life, Hollywood’s cause films are black and white morality tales. Pick any left-wing cause and there are a bevy of films designed to deliver the “proper” opinion.
The muckraker theme is a perennial favorite. By exposing the evils of unfettered capitalism, Hollywood hopes to promote socialist regulation of industry. China Syndrome shows an evil capitalist power plant covering up malfunctions to save money. Hanoi Jane Fonda’s muckraker journalist uncovers the truth, thereby saving California from destruction. A blue collar gal in Silkwood attempts to expose an evil corporation for making faulty uranium fuel rods. But before she can tell the world, the Man runs her off the road and into a tree. In Erin Brochovich, a buxom Julia Roberts plays an amateur lawyer. She uncovers the illegal dumping of toxic chromium 6 into a local water supply, winning a huge judgment against the evil Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Then there are the many criminal justice cause films. In Cool Hand Luke an easygoing loser is caught in the clutches of Georgia’s evil chain gang system. Al Pacino’s young liberal lawyer enlightens us about a criminal justice built on lies and money and backroom deals (In Justice for All). Paul Newman plays an alcoholic ambulance chaser in The Verdict. He’s trying to win a settlement after a corrupt, rich, evil Catholic Hospital turns his poor client into a vegetable. Sean Penn’s lovable rapist-murderer on Louisiana’s death row is redeemed by a left-wing nun in Dead Man Walking. And minorities and the poor are always shafted by the racist-classist justice system. Denzel Washington’s Ruben “Hurricane” Carter is a beautiful black boxer who is set up by a racist cop, and sentenced to life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit in The Hurricane. Then some Canadian do-gooders uncover the truth and set the “Hurricane” free.
Sexism is another social evil Hollywood is keen on teaching us about. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s Bastard Out of Carolina informs us that most southern white men are evil and molest their daughters. Rather than live with lying, cheating, evil rednecks, Thelma and Louise drive off a cliff. According to director Ridley Scott, all male military outfits are sexist and un-American. (Scott is British). Having shot a BB gun, Scott knows best how to organize elite combat units. In his G.I. Jane, Demi Moore’s character breaks through the testosterone barrier of the Navy Seals. After finally accepting her as a member of the team, Mr. Navy Seal sheds his sexist attitude and opines “The problem is with us.” Yes, Dear Brutus. The fault isn’t that women are unqualified to serve as Navy Seals, the fault is in our own outdated, sexist attitudes. And in Mona Lisa Smile, Julia Roberts’ bohemian art teacher tries to teach her students at an all female college that there is more to life than the drudgery of marriage and babies.
Unless the egalitarians designate the enemy, war is generally bad, patriotism is usually a lie, and military figures are generally fascist nut bars. Catch 22 shows us the absurdity of war. Stanley Kubrick warns us in Dr. Strangelove that civilization is just one push of a button away from oblivion. And the people who control the buttons are George S. Patton style lunatic generals, who believe the commies are “trying to sap our masculine juices.” In his Full Metal Jacket Kubrick penetrates the façade of patriotism to reveal the United States Marine Corp as just a glorified school for murderers. Robert Altman’s M*A*S*H is a commentary on the mindless brutality of war, as seen through the drunken haze of two irreverent military surgeons. Jon Voight plays a disabled Vietnam veteran in the highly acclaimed Coming Home. Asked to speak on behalf of the R.O.T.C. at the local high school, Voight’s wheelchair bound war hero tells the youngsters that the war is “not worth it.” A sweet hippie tune plays in the background. A battle-hardened Marine in full dress uniform starts to cry. That’s Oscar material folks! Tom Cruise sports a bad hair weave to tell us pretty much the same thing in Born on the Fourth of July.
America’s foreign policy ought to be a clearing house for liberal causes. Using the wealth and power of the United States for any other purpose is evil. Too often the Economic Man uses the government as an instrument for exploiting the poor on behalf of greedy corporations. In Syriana George Clooney’s CIA agent is assigned to assassinate an Arab Nelson Mandela because he threatens to take power in an oil rich country and raise the price of crude. Syriana teaches us why the Middle East is filled with corrupt authoritarian regimes: It is because ugly Americans need low priced gas to fill their huge Humvees. In order to accomplish this, the CIA installs corrupt rulers who agree to sell us cheap oil, while shafting their own people out of the proceeds. The West could have peaceful, stable governments in the Persian Gulf, but we would have to pay $10 a gallon for our gas. Not wanting to pay that much, the US government would rather have Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and the Ayatollahs in Iran. We’ll accept the risk of having an Iranian built nuclear weapon detonated in downtown New York City in order to get our cheap gas. For cheap gas we’ll tolerate the corrupt oil princes of Saudi Arabia, who fund Madrassas around the Muslim world that teach young men to fly planes into our buildings. Sure we lose a few buildings and a war every now and then, but it's all worth it. We have to support a massive fleet in the Persian Gulf, and we have to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the cheap gas is worth it.
Name the leftwing cause and there is a film to promote it. Writer John Grisham is a master at concocting half -baked liberal tales for his comrades in Hollywood. One of his latest is Runaway Jury, a gun control film. Evil gun manufacturers are sued after selling a Saturday night special to a mental case, who then goes on a shooting rampage. They hire Gene Hackman’s crooked jury consultant to avoid an adverse jury award. But John Cusack’s closeted anti-gun crusader manages to infiltrate the jury and convinces them to shut down the dealers of death. The plight of male hookers and the homeless is shown in Midnight Cowboy. Steven Soderbergh tells us all we need to know about the Drug War in Traffic. Do you want to know why drugs are so available in the inner city black ghetto? The projects are overrun with crack dealers because mobs of rich white kids from the suburbs keep beating down their doors to buy drugs. Says Soderbergh through his vapid character, “If people came to your door to buy drugs every day, you wouldn’t go to law school. You’d become a drug dealer too.” How perceptive.
America is a nation founded on the extermination of Indians. Steven Spielberg’s Into the West makes the point that Western Civilization is inherently evil and Manifest Destiny is a nice-sounding name for the extermination of the American Indian. The latest installment on the white-man-killed-all the-Indians theme is Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.
But there are a few good white men. Not many, just a few. One is Kevin Costner’s Captain Dunbar in Dances with Wolves. Disillusioned by his Civil War experience, Captain Dunbar wants to commit suicide. The white man’s world sickens him. He dreams of going back to nature. Such a life can’t be found among the evil whites though, so he volunteers for an assignment at a remote fort on the unsettled western plains. There, he hopes to discover a life worth living among the Lakota Indians. He’s not disappointed. Far from being the cruel savages of legend, Dunbar finds that the Lakota are a peaceful, loving, clean people, much more elevated than his warlike, hateful, filthy white cousins. Paradise doesn’t last long. Charging him with desertion, the evil US Calvary arrests Dunbar and tries to take him back for trial. In a reversal of the cavalry-coming-to-the-rescue theme, Dunbar’s Lakota friends intervene and kill the entire cavalry detachment, with Dunbar tomahawking his share of evil rednecks.
No matter how remote the issue or historical event, virtually every negative thing that has happened in the world is the fault of the West. Who is responsible for the genocide in Rwanda? Was it the Hutus? No, the Belgians are to blame, says Hotel Rwanda. A hundred years before the Hutus massacred the Tutsis the Belgians controlled Rwanda. Two classes were created out of the native subjects, one for important work (Tutsi tribe) and the other for menial work (Hutu tribe). When the Belgians pulled out in the 1950s the Tutsis and Hutus started contending for power. This culminated in the genocide in the 1990s. Therefore, the evil white Belgians are responsible. Who was responsible for the murder of 2 million Cambodians in the late 1970s? Was it Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge? No, it was Richard Nixon and the evil Hawks in the Pentagon. In The Killing Fields, the New York Times reporter teaches us how to do Marxist historiography. It was Nixon’s decision to bomb the NVA sanctuaries in Cambodia (1970) that caused the genocide. Peasants were killed in the raids. This “radicalized” them and caused them to join the Khmer Rouge and overthrow their government. Still remembering Nixon’s bombings, they decided to shoot and club to death 2 million of their own people. Thus the evil Americans were responsible.
In fact, the West is to blame for every civil war, coup, famine, disease, or genocide in Africa and Asia. For it was Western Imperialism that created all the conditions that foster these things.
Looking at the problems of America’s inner cities, one is tempted to blame them on the endemic culture of the ghetto that has decimated the black family and perpetuated an environment of crime and violence. That’s the logical answer, but the wrong one. America has covered its tracks, but it’s easy to see after watching Crash, Do the Right Thing, and Boyz in the Hood that all these problems are at best the legacy of slavery and segregation, and at worst a deliberate policy of genocide designed to kill off the black man.
Without exception, the good guy in every Hollywood political drama is a liberal Democrat, and the bad guy is a conservative Republican. The Manchurian Candidate enlightens us that rightwing conservatives are the real enemies of America. The son of a prominent Joe McCarthy-style senator, Raymond Shaw is taken prisoner during the Korean War and brainwashed to become an assassin. The war over, Shaw’s father is nominated for Vice President. The plan is for Raymond to kill the President elect and install his father in the White House. Come to find out, Shaw’s mother is a KGB agent. The McCarthyism is just a cover for a Soviet plot. The only ones that can save the day are an ACLU supporting liberal Senator and Frank Sinatra. The thinly disguised message is that Soviet Bolsheviks and American McCarthyite conservatives represent the same kind of totalitarianism, and both are threats to American freedom.
It’s the same with political comedy. In Rob Reiner’s The American President, Michael Douglas’ lovely liberal Commander-in-Chief is searching for a new love interest after the death of his first wife. He finds his new honey in Sidney Wade, a leftwing lobbyist for some environmental organization. Sydney wants the President’s help on a tree hugger bill, but his legislative priority is a crime bill, with a key provision banning assault weapons and handguns. Politics being about compromise, the President is forced to negotiate with the odious NRA-loving conservative Senator Rumson. Rumson gets some political leverage after one of his evil flunkies finds an old picture of Sydney burning an American flag during a protest. The President is reluctantly forced to drop the gun-banning provisions, and Sydney’s tree hugger bill falls by the wayside. But liberalism and love conquer all, including evil conservatives. After wrestling with his egalitarian conscience, the President decides that he will not compromise America’s future with the likes of Rumson. So he calls a press conference. With liberal sermon music playing in the background, he lectures America that he “can’t solve the crime problem without going after assault weapons and handguns.” Since a reactionary Congress will not help solve the problem, he will issue executive orders: “Guns are a threat to national security,” he says, “so I’m coming to get your gun.” Hallelujah Brother! The West Wing television series, starring Martin Sheen, covers Clintonesque President Bartlett as he battles reactionary Republicans. Geena Davis’ Commander in Chief is even more blatant in its leftist advocacy. As the first female president, she threatens to declare war on a Central African country in order to stop female genital mutilation. Now that’s what I call appropriate use of the President’s war powers.
Truly progressive filmmakers make movies that celebrate the real heroes in history. These films are made to earn insider status in Tinsel town. Warren Beatty’s Reds follows the tempestuous love affair of journalists John Reed and Louise Bryant. Members of Eugene Debs’ Socialist Party, both meet in the free love atmosphere of Greenwich Village just prior to the First World War. It’s a heady time for young communists. Until the outbreak of the war, global revolution is expected any day. But the war splits the international movement and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is put on hold. Then in 1917 revolution breaks out in Russia. Reed and Bryant rush to cover the events, arriving just in time to witness Kerensky’s collapse and Lenin’s seizure of power in the October Revolution. Their collaborative work becomes a bestseller of progressive literature, Ten Days that Shook the World. In the early days after the Revolution, the evil capitalist powers try to strangle the new socialist republic. Reed is trapped in Russia, and soon after dies of disease, becoming the only American to be buried in the Kremlin. Tim Robbins’ recent film Catch A Fire chronicles the heroic adventures of a young communist terrorist as he battles the South African government in the early 1980s. Robbins dedicates the film to his friend, Joe Slovo. Slovo was a longtime communist and leader of Umkhonto (MK), which was the terrorist wing of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress and was responsible for numerous murders and bombings. The Motorcycle Diaries portrays a young Che Guevara as he acquires a social conscience on a bike trip through South America. Inspired by his trip, Guevara becomes a full time revolutionary, helping Fidel Castro come to power in Cuba in the 1950s.
Most of these films are a little too hip for the average mass-man. They are targeted at the elite, your graduate of Columbia or Harvard, who is going on to become a professor, or an editor at Rolling Stone, or an ACLU lawyer. The typical cause film will steer clear of an overtly communist message. They deliver the same message in a more subtle package.
These types of cause films dominate the Oscar list every year. In fact, the primary purpose of the Oscars is to focus on the opinions the Hollywood leftist Establishment wants the masses to adopt. The cause film is an ideological seminar aimed at the educated class in America. The hope is that after being inspired by a cause film they will filter its opinion down to the mouth-breathers. The Oscars are Hollywood’s opportunity to rededicate itself. To stay profitable, the Hollywood film Czars are forced to market mindless sex and violence for most of the year. The typical “summer blockbuster”-Terminator, Batman, Lethal Weapon, Die Harder- is Hollywood’s bread and butter. But unlike the Roman arena, Hollywood is not just about bread and circuses, it’s about indoctrinating the masses with egalitarian opinions. This is shown clearly at each Oscar’s ceremony. The Oscars are Hollywood’s revival time, the season for filmmakers to come to the crimson altar and rededicate themselves to the egalitarian gods.
This year’s list of Oscar nominated films is no exception. Clint Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima is the Second World War seen through the eyes of a noble Japanese general, who is tasked with defending the island against racist United States Marines. Pan’s Labyrinth is an extremely hip film about a little girl living in a small country town in Spain just after the civil war (1936-1939). Franco’s conservatives are victorious over the communists and her mother’s fiancé is a Franco officer engaged in mopping up the last pockets of communist terrorists in the area. The little girl lives in an imaginary world, where the forces of evil are trying to wipe out the children of light. Thus the girl’s imaginary world is a metaphor for the real events unfolding around her, as her sadistic fascist father-in-law battles the last heroic defenders of Marxism in Spain. Babel, starring the empty headed Brad Pitt, is the typical warm and fuzzy film that tries to make the pinko point about the universal human experience. From the dusty Third Worlder to the American suburbanite, we are all the same. The barriers of language, religion, nation are all artificial. Blood Diamond makes Westerners feel guilty for causing Africans to cut one another’s limbs off with machetes in order to supply New York socialites with shiny rocks.
Last but not least was Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, his magnum opus about global warming. The world is going under the ocean because of greedy SUV-driving Americans sucking up the world’s energy and spewing it out into the atmosphere as “greenhouse gases.” Unless socialists like Al Gore are given appropriate regulatory power over private property and industry, we’re all doomed. The red carpet treatment given to Al Gore’s film is the best evidence available as to Hollywood’s leftist agenda. An Inconvenient Truth is a pure propaganda film with no pretensions about entertaining the viewer at all. Despite considerable disagreement about the extent of so- called global warming, Hollywood is not neutral. And unless you adopt Al Gore’s truth, you are contributing to the demise of the planet. No one cometh to enlightenment except through Al Gore and Leftist Hollywood. Gore’s film was the centerpiece of the awards ceremony. Singer Melissa Etheridge was called upon to perform the film’s theme song. Then the Stiff One himself came out and delivered a short sermon about what we all need to do to slow global warming. It was a leftist love fest with lesbian theme music.
Let’s imagine an alternative. What if Dick Cheney had made a film about the Iraq invasion, An Inconvenient Dictator. And the film was about why the invasion was justified, and why we needed to support the war effort. Can you imagine Hollywood awarding his film an Oscar and inviting him to give a speech about it? Can you imagine Toby Keith performing his song about putting boots in Arab butts? Or what about this: Pat Buchanan makes a film about the horrors of abortion, An Inconvenient Pregnancy. Do you think Hollywood would showcase his film? Or how about Tom Tancredo making a film about illegal immigration, An Inconvenient Border Problem? These suggestions sound absurd because we have come to accept that Hollywood is a bastion of Leftist propaganda; other views need not apply.
But if you ask Hollywood about its monolithic bias, they’ll say the views expressed in those cause films are “controversial,” “anti-establishment.” For instance, the corpulent Michael Moore makes a film every year, and always advertises as if it were made in a basement somewhere, just one step ahead of jack-booted CIA agents. That’s right, fascists are out to censor Michael Moore. His Bowling for Columbine is a liberal gun control screed. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film about how the Bush administration and the Saudi royal family conspired to use the 9/11 attacks to take away our civil liberties and invade Iraq. Moore’s latest film Sicko is a cause film about how greedy capitalist HMOs and right wing politicians conspire to keep America’s proletariat from getting decent health care. The progressive Castro regime actually provides Cubans better health care than evil capitalist America, says Moore. Rumors are now afloat on the Internet that the Bush Administration will confiscate Moore’s latest film. And pigs will fly.
The “controversial,” “anti-establishment” labels are selling points. Labeling a film as such is meant to appeal to the part of us that likes to think of ourselves as rebels. This is especially true of the young. One of the greatest tricks the Establishment has pulled on our young people is to convince them that their agenda is the rebel’s agenda. It is exactly the reverse. Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Hollywood are the Establishment. The only permissible opposition is from the inertia and indifference of the Economic Man half of the Establishment. Hollywood’s cause films set the agenda for the future, they are the marching orders issued to the mindless myrmidons pounding bongos on America’s college campuses. The Hollywood Establishment will not permit any principled conservative arguments against their agenda. There has never been a cause film designed to support gun rights. There has never been a cause film that argues directly against the global warming agenda. Nor has there been a film that argues against universal health care. No filmmaker will ever argue that George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq. And as we will see shortly, Hollywood has never made, nor will it ever make a film with a decidedly pro-life, or anti-homosexuality message.
Fed a steady diet of these cause films, the “rebels” at Berkley and Harvard and Columbia are just like the communist students who tore China apart during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960’s. The students thought they were shaking up the “Establishment,” when in reality Mao Zedong and his wife were the ones calling the shots all along. Marxists believe that revolution is a constant- every generation must be inspired to burn more, purge more, to push on toward the utopian classless society. Because if they don’t the forces of reaction will set in and inequality will reemerge. Revolution, they believe, is a continual tearing down.
In the history of Hollywood, no other cause has used up more celluloid than racial tolerance. Seventy years ago in America, attitudes about race were very different than today. Whether in the North or in the South, the majority of both whites and blacks were opposed to integration on a social level. In the North, whites and blacks lived in separate neighborhoods by choice. In the South, the races were segregated by law. And the idea of racial intermarriage was taboo. Nowadays, attitudes about race are exactly the reverse. At least in public, no one, especially someone who is white, will oppose racial integration. And unless they are black, very few people can get away with opposing racial intermarriage. Why the radical change in attitudes? Did Americans change their minds about race? Or, were there minds changed for them?
After the Civil War whites and blacks lived in separate worlds. But by the early decades of the twentieth century there were several forces at work changing America’s racial landscape. Economic forces were making formal segregation difficult. Starting with the First World War millions of blacks left the rural South and moved north to cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and New York. There, they gained in wealth and power, making their formal exclusion from the economy problematic. Even in the mostly rural South, economic segregation was a problem. As well as losing potential black customers, large chain stores lost the support of Northern liberals when they put up “Whites Only” signs.
And of course, legal segregation was under assault starting in the 1930s. Under pressure from his wife and the leftist part of his coalition, Roosevelt integrated many of his New Deal programs. Truman integrated the military in 1948. Interstate public transportation was integrated in 1947. Shortly after, Brown vs. the Board of Education declared segregated public schools unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Act came in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Legal segregation was dead by 1970.
But all of these changes affected only the surface of society. The changes in the law were coming from the top down. The new economic realities brought whites and blacks together during business hours, but at night, each returned to their separate worlds. Attitudes were still segregationist, despite the changed legal and economic landscape. As Martin Luther King remarked “We can change the laws, but that will not change people’s hearts.”
This is where the pop-culture stepped in. All segregationist sentiment was banished from music, television, and film. Racial integration and tolerance were promoted. From the 1950s forward, no other cause in the history of opinion-shaping has been worked like racial tolerance in America. Everyone over forty is familiar with Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird (1962). Finch is a lawyer in a small southern town who is asked to defend a black man accused of rape in the 1930s. On his way to proving his client innocent, Finch teaches his children that only ignorant people judge a man by the color of his skin. The Defiant Ones follows the trials and tribulations of two escaped convicts, one white and the other black. Handcuffed together, the pair is forced to help one another. It’s no easy matter, as both argue and tear at each other. Eventually, they find a young white widow who agrees to remove their cuffs. As both plan to split up, she gives the black convict directions that will lead him into a swamp, hoping that the man hunters will follow him, while her and her new beau make a break for it. Forced to choose, the white convict (Tony Curtis) drops the racist hag and rescues his black friend from quicksand. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner tackles the taboo of interracial marriage. A young nubile white woman brings her black fiancé (Sidney Poiteir) home to meet the folks. Shenanigans and wackiness ensues. Finished wrestling with his own outdated racist attitudes, the father (Spencer Tracy) embraces his new son-in-law and delivers a sermon to the home audience about the evils of racial intolerance. In yet another Sidney Potier-to-the-rescue film, he plays Virgil Tibbs in In The Heat of the Night. A black detective from the North, Tibbs is accused of murder while passing through a small Mississippi town. Cleared of the murder charges, Tibbs offers to help catch the real killer using his big city know-how. But the racist redneck Police Chief Gillespie (Rod Steiger) is having none of it. Gillespie finally sheds his racist hostility and comes to respect the spunky Negro detective.
These films of the 50s and 60s set the pattern for many more films with the same racial tolerance theme: Roots, Remember the Titans, Mississippi Burning, Lords of Discipline. And there are scores of other films with racial tolerance woven into a larger plot: The Great Santini, Forrest Gump, Monster’s Ball. The latest installment on the racial tolerance theme is The Great Debaters. Virtually every dramatic or comedy series that has been on television since the 1960s has dealt with racial tolerance in the required way. Practically all of these films were awarded Oscars. Segregationist sentiment, unless it is black (Malcom X), is always portrayed as evil. There has never been a white segregationist film made in Hollywood. Collectively, these films laid the foundation for contemporary opinions about race in America.
Hollywood’s efforts paid off. In less than thirty years segregationist opinion was driven into the shadows. The polemic was aimed at the white majority. As the excluders, white Americans were the bad guys. White racial exclusion was portrayed as the greatest evil on the planet. Stereotyped images of whites oppressing blacks, and other minorities, were shown over and over and over again. The redneck racist sheriffs, the blond-haired blue-eyed Nazi, the brain-dead Bubba nightrider are stock characters in Hollywood’s cupboard. The result is that today it is unthinkable for whites to express anything but unqualified support for civil rights and integration. Even interracial marriage, once a great taboo, is accepted by all.
To measure the extent of the change, just contrast the opinions of public officials in the past with those held by public officials today. When the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln was running for an Illinois senate seat in 1858, the best weapon his opponent, Stephen Douglas, used against him was to accuse him of wanting social equality between the races. Lincoln responded that he was opposed to slavery, but was not in favor of integration: “I am not now, nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races…”1 At the turn of the last century, Teddy Roosevelt was quoted as saying, “As individuals, I believe some blacks to be my equal. But as a race, blacks are inferior.” When Woodrow Wilson took presidential office, he was disturbed that Washington D.C. was too lax on racial matters. A Virginian, Wilson thought the races should be strictly separated. So he instituted a bunch of segregationist measures in the capital. When asked his opinion about integrating the military in 1941, Chief of Staff George C. Marshall said, “The army is not a sociological laboratory.”2 Needless to say, if any white public official today was even rumored to have expressed such opinions on race, he wouldn’t be able to hold down a job as a dog catcher in Pork Bend, Indiana.
White public figures today live in constant fear of expressing a “racist” sentiment. A seemingly innocuous comment or joke can destroy an entire career. Trent Lott, for instance, never recovered from his Strom Thurmond comment. Jimmie the Greek disappeared into obscurity after his remarks about black athletes. George Allen lost the governors race in Virginia because of his off-the-cuff joke about a “Maccaca.” Even left-leaning shock-jock Don Imus was called before the tolerance Inquisition for his “nappy-headed” comment. Every year America is treated to the spectacle of some white public figure being forced to shoulder a block of white guilt and crawl before the likes of Al Sharpton, begging for forgiveness. These are the fruits of Hollywood’s racial tolerance campaign. Hollywood has induced a level of fear and self-loathing in whites for real and imagined injustices done to racial minorities in the past. Hollywood’s racial tolerance campaign is the best example of public opinion manufacturing in history. As a case of mass psychology manipulation, it is second to none. Fifty years ago it was hard to find a public figure in the South who was not a supporter of segregation. Today, you can’t find a segregationist anywhere.
The point I’m making is not that civil rights or integration were bad ideas. What I am saying is that America’s radical change of opinion on race in the past seventy years was not the result of natural change. Economic change doesn’t cause the Governor of Virginia to cringe in terror on the Larry King Live Show, begging America for forgiveness for telling a joke. These attitudes were engineered, imposed, and are now enforced by maintaining a climate of moral terror, which prevents anyone from expressing an unorthodox opinion on race.
As a social conservative, you are probably saying to yourself, “Conservative support for segregation seventy years ago was wrong. Our grandfathers were bigots. If Hollywood changed America’s opinions on race, that was a good thing. What is the problem?” The problem is, you are next. The problem is, your grandchildren will be saying the same kind of things about you. Thirty years ago Hollywood managed to engineer segregation out of the American psyche. Over the next thirty years Hollywood intends to engineer Christian social conservatism out of the American psyche. First, the media wants to make it unacceptable for anyone to claim that Christians have an exclusive monopoly on the truth and salvation. Second, Hollywood wants to normalize homosexuality across the board. Third, our masters in the media want to end all opposition to abortion-on-demand. Eventually, they want to make these causes as unpopular as segregationism. No public figure would dare champion the cause of segregation today. Hollywood is confident that in thirty years no public figure will champion social conservative causes either.
In a recent interview about his latest book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins said the book’s purpose is “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity.” Conservative Christians are “hell bent on ruining the scientific education of thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager minds,” said Dawkins. Because Christianity’s fundamental viewpoint “debauches the scientific enterprise,” it cannot be tolerated in today’s world.3 Spoken like a true Marxist. Now, if you were to look on the coffee table of Steven Spielberg, Alan Ball, David Geffen, or Ang Lee you would probably find a copy of The God Delusion. Such Hollywood moguls take their intellectual marching orders from pinko academics like Dawkins. They then translate them into simple morality tales and spoon feed them to mass-man. In the minds of Hollywood’s elite, the social conservatives of today are just as bad as those segregationists of old. They see no difference between the Pat Buchannans of today and the George Wallaces of the past. To them religious exclusion is just as bad as racial exclusion. They believe those who oppose gay marriage today are just like those who opposed interracial marriage in the past. They believe those who are against abortion today are the same people, wearing different clothes, who were against integration fifty years ago. And they will not rest until all of these beliefs are driven completely underground.
Hollywood was successful in promoting their notion of racial tolerance partly because they had a monopoly over the big bullhorn and could exclude all other opinions on the issue of race. Argument confuses mass-man. He wants his opinions pureed and spoon fed to him. There are good guys and bad guys, he just needs his keeper to point out which is which. Villains can’t have perspectives. In yesterday’s racial polemics, on one side was the ignorant tobacco-chewing southern racist sheriff, and on the other was the victimized numinous Negro and the enlightened do-gooder white liberal. In today’s polemic, on one side is the evil scheming Catholic priest and the Southern Baptist Bible-thumping bigot, and on the other is the good open-minded liberal and his non-Christian ally. Those are the parameters for the polemic. Hollywood will not tolerate anyone who confuses that message.
First, Christianity’s claim to hold the keys to the kingdom, which is the essence of Christian teachings, is banned from the mass media. Instead, the pop-culture attacks Christianity as the greatest evil. In the Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus is not the Son of God. He is a mentally disturbed social activist, who lusts after prostitutes. The Church is not Christ’s representative on Earth. The DaVinci Code tells us the Church is a conspiracy of the rich to keep the poor under control, using myth and superstition. The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Incarnation-all are lies. Christ is a Gandhi-style social activist who marries Mary Magdalene, and later moves to France, where he sires the Merovingian Royal blood line. The Church knows this, but has conspired for 2000 years to conceal the truth. And anyone who threatens to reveal the truth is dispatched by pistol-packing monks. The Stigamta has the Church using miracles to support its false power. Burt Lancaster’s Elmer Gantry is a smooth-talking huckster, who preaches for women and cold hard cash. In The Handmaiden’s Tale, Pat Robertson style fundamentalists use the AIDS epidemic to take over the country, locking up lesbians and all manner of heathens in concentration camps. A high school girl is abused by an overly religious mother and develops destructive telekinetic powers in Carrie. Primal Fear has Edward Norton’s alter boy taking revenge on an Archbishop for using him as a sex toy in pornographic videos. Mandy Moore plays a born again bigot in Saved. Inherit the Wind is a leftist tale about the Scopes trial. Big city atheist lawyer Drummond (Spencer Tracy) comes to the rescue after a small Tennessee town charges a progressive science teacher with the crime of teaching evolution. Christianity, says Drummond, is a “Golden chalice of hope, founded on intolerance, bigotry and hate.”
There are a few good Christians. However, the only good Christian in Hollywood is a socialist Christian. Jeremy Irons’ Jesuits erect a socialist utopia for the natives in South America (The Mission). But paradise is lost when evil white fascists invade to steal their land. Susan Sarandon plays a leftist nun who ministers to Sean Penn’s rapist-murder in Dead Man Walking.
I can think of only two films that have portrayed traditional Christian themes favorably: The Apostle and The Passion of the Christ. Both, however, were independent films, receiving no support from the major studios, or the Hollywood Establishment. And the controversy surrounding the release of Mel Gibson’s Passion is the best evidence available of Hollywood’s extreme hatred for Christianity.
Gibson upset Hollywood’s monolithic message on Christianity. When constructing a polemic, you must stay on message. Hollywood has built a polemic that says Christians are bad, unless they espouse egalitarian values. The commissars in Tinsletown have been writing a different gospel for years. And since most Americans have never read the real gospel, they have by and large accepted Hollywood’s version. By returning to the original gospel, Gibson confused Hollywood’s polemic.
Hollywood’s gospel goes like this: Christ is not born of a virgin. He is not divine. Jesus is simply a political activist, an ancient day version of Martin Luther King. His message is non-exclusive, pacifist, and aimed at correcting the social injustices committed by the fascist Roman Empire. The “Sermon on the Mount” is basically a teach-in about the conditions of the proletariat in Palestine. Noticing the threat of this upstart revolutionary, the right winger Pilate seeks to bring him down. So he coerces the reluctant Jewish chief priests to deliver Jesus up for crucifixion. Jesus is, therefore, a martyr for social justice brought down by the Man like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. Later on fascist churchmen corrupt Jesus’ revolutionary movement, says Hollywood. They built the myth of traditional Christianity in order to keep the poor people ignorant and subservient to kings and priests. The Virgin Birth, Christ’s Divinity, the Miracles, Heaven and Hell-all are myths. The entire New Testament is nothing but anti-Semitic propaganda. Christ is really Che Guevara in sandals, and don’t you forget it.
Query most “Christians” today and you will probably get some version of this Marxist fairy tale. Actually, Hollywood’s gospel is an application of the old Marxist adage, “If you can’t shoot them all, then join them and twist their beliefs to your liking.” Old-style scientific socialism had no room for God or the after life. This alienated people. The Fabian method was far more effective. Egalitarians joined the churches and have slowly transformed them from the inside, turning Christianity into Marxism with only a thin veneer of religious symbolism.
The part of the gospel story that the Establishment has worked hardest to change is the crucifixion. Every Easter the masses are treated to a host of television programs devoted to distorting the facts of the Bible. CNN’s “Who Killed Jesus” is typical. It’s a familiar routine. The program invites a bevy of leftist academics, who happen to wear liturgical collars. These “Jesus Experts” have long credentials behind their names from the best universities. All of them know the Bible well; but all of them deliberately distort what it says. Like a bunch of political hacks on the campaign trail they deliver the party line: Who killed Jesus? “The Romans did it, and the Jewish chief priests were reluctant co-conspiritors,” they repeat over and over again like Chatty Kathy dolls.
What are these “Jesus experts” trying to accomplish? Well, as the new caretakers of American’s soul, they believe the Bible is in need of a serious rewrite. They believe that the New Testament, as written, is largely 1st century anti-Semitic propaganda. Over the centuries, so the story goes, bigoted Gentile churchmen have used the gospels to incite hatred for Jews by blaming them for Christ’s death. This Christian propaganda helped create a climate of anti-Semitism in Europe for over a thousand years, which resulted in numerous pogroms and persecutions. Ultimately, this generalized anti-Semitism led to the Nazi persecutions in the twentieth century. That the Nazis were hostile to Christianity is irrelevant, they say. The Nazis got away with persecuting the Jews because most Germans were raised on anti-Semitic Christian beliefs. This is the argument put forth clearly in Hitler’s Willing Executioners, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. They hold Christianity itself responsible for the Holocaust. And if Christianity is allowed to exist in today’s tolerant society, it must be reengineered, starting with a rewrite of the crucifixion story itself.
Because most Americans use their Bibles to decorate their coffee tables instead of reading them, this biblical rewrite is relatively easy. For example, Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto premised a discussion on Gibson’s Passion by asking his guest, a Catholic priest: “This whole controversy is really a matter of biblical interpretation, right?” Dumbfounded by Cavuto’s ignorance, the priest responded, “No, the controversy is about whether a filmmaker can tell the gospel story on the big screen.”
That was Gibson’s crime-he told the gospel story on the big screen. Just in case you are like poor Neil Cavuto, here is the basic gospel story, the one the Establishment has condemned as anti-Semitic. Jesus is born in Bethlehem to a virgin.4 After being baptized by John in the river Jordan, he begins preaching the Kingdom of Heaven message.5 It is an exclusive message, there being no other way to Heaven except through Christ.6 His Kingdom of Heaven is both an ethic 7 and a supernatural place.8 His message is not a break with Moses’ Law, but rather its fulfillment.9 Jesus teaches individuals to believe on Him as God, conform to the kingdom of Heaven ethic, and prepare for the life to come in the next world.10 He is not a political activist 11; he has no plan to reform the politics of Palestine; he heals Gentile Romans and Jews alike.12 Christ’s concerns are with redeeming individual souls from sin and damnation in preparation for eternal life in the next world. This world, as a whole, is unredeemable and will be replaced by His supernatural kingdom.13
The religious authorities-Pharisees, Sadducees, and chief priests-of Jesus’ own people (Jews) oppose His ministry from the start.14 The controversy is over His interpretation of the Laws of Moses, and later over His claim to be equal with God.15 Early on Jesus sees His persecution and His upcoming crucifixion at the hands of the High Priest as the fulfillment of prophecy.16
Wanting a showdown with the chief priests, Christ goes to Jerusalem just before the Passover, the holiest time of year for religious Jews. There, He enters the Temple “overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.”17 The next day Jesus returns to the Temple, and with the chief priests looking on, He speaks to the people. Condemning the chief priests for hypocrisy and for corrupting Moses’ Law in the pursuit of wealth and power, Jesus challenges the religious establishment. Not only that, He compares them to the Jewish leaders of the past who rejected and killed most of the prophets. And now that God has sent His Son (Jesus), the chief priests and elders reject Him too. For this, says Jesus, the Covenant will be taken from them and offered to others willing to listen and obey God.18
The chief priests are livid. How dare this upstart enter their Temple and insult them in front of the people. From that moment on “the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to arrest him by treachery and put him to death.”19 They find a willing accomplice in one of Christ’s disciples, Judas. Judas “went off to the chief priests to hand him over to them.” After hearing Judas’ plan, the chief priests “were pleased and promised to pay him money.”20 Judas leads the Temple guards to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Captured, Jesus is brought before “all the chief priests and elders and the scribes. . .”.21 Unable to find a false witness against Him, the high priest asks Jesus, “‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?’ Then Jesus answered ‘I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power and coming in the clouds of heaven.’ At that the high priest tore his garments and said, ‘What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ They all condemned him as deserving to die.”22
The next morning Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea. There, the chief priests say nothing of religious blasphemy. Instead they accuse Jesus of political sedition, of claiming to be “King of the Jews.” As Governor, Pilate is tasked with taxing and keeping peace in Judea, and this means putting down all opposition to Rome’s authority. Resistance to Roman rule in Judea is frequent and bloody. The penalty for sedition is death.
But after examining Jesus, Pilate finds that the accusations of the chief priests are false, “For he knew that it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed him over.”23 Obviously, Christ is not a political revolutionary. This is a religious dispute and the chief priests want him to do their dirty work. But Pilate wants no part in it. Pilate’s wife tells him to “Have nothing to do with that righteous man.”24
Meanwhile, a crowd has gathered outside Pilate’s Court. At Passover it is customary for the Governor to release a Jewish prisoner, so Pilate goes out to the people and suggests releasing Jesus. But “The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas, but to destroy Jesus.”25 Barabbas is an actual revolutionary, who has been jailed for killing Roman soldiers during an insurrection.26 Pilate tries three times to release Jesus, asking the crowd “‘What evil has he done?’ But each time, the crowd only shouts louder ‘Let him be crucified!’ When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ And the whole people said in reply ‘His blood be upon us and upon our children.’”27 Thus Pilate releases Barabbas and delivers Christ to the will of the chief priests and the mob. Three days after his crucifixion Jesus rises from the grave and ascends into heaven.28
Some of the gospels add more details to the story that are not found in the other gospels. And later, churchmen extrapolated a whole host of doctrines based on Jesus’ crucifixion. But all of the synoptic (first three) gospels tell the basic story that I just summarized. That is the gospel story as told for 2,000 years. Besides a few short sentences in the writings of Josephus that mention the crucifixion of Jesus, the four gospels are the only reliable sources on the life and death of Christ. The Gospel story is the basis of Christianity. Without the gospels, there is no Christianity. By decreeing Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ politically incorrect, the Establishment has decreed Christianity itself to be politically incorrect.
Hollywood has produced films that are incredibly hostile toward Christianity. Almost every year the commissars of Tinsel town cook up another insult to Christians. Liberals will say that the reason Gibson’s film was controversial was because it presented a religious opinion in a diverse society. Religious opinions ought to stay out of the public square, they say. This is, of course, a lie. Hollywood has no problem producing films that offer hostile opinions about Christianity. They just won’t allow favorable opinions about Christianity. It is perfectly acceptable for a filmmaker to portray Christ as a demented pervert (Last Temptation of Christ). Hollywood has no qualms in showing a Catholic monk committing murders at the behest of a Catholic Bishop (The DaVinci Code). There is no problem with ridiculing born again Christians (Saved). But when Mel Gibson wanted to present the basic gospel story on the big screen, he was run out of Hollywood on a rail.
Second is Hollywood’s campaign to promote tolerance of homosexuality. Starting soon after Bill Clinton’s failed attempt to allow gays to serve openly in the military, Hollywood launched an aggressive campaign to normalize homosexuality. Ellen DeGeneres made a famous exit from the closet. Other celebrities followed her: Rosie O’Donnel, K.D. Lang, Elton John, Melisa Etheridge. From the mid 1990’s on the pop-culture decreed all things homosexual to be hip. The main theme of the Howard Stern Radio Show was to think up new and more perverted ways that lesbians could titillate young male listeners. Joe Francis started building his media empire on reality porn, featuring college age girls engaged in lesbian foreplay (Girls Gone Wild). Now, practically every film targeted at brain dead young males has the obligatory lesbianism: American Pie, Starsky and Hutch, The Girl Next Door.
Comedy is often used as a vehicle to soften serious subjects. Norman Lear used it effectively in his All in the Family, to make light of the social conflicts of the 60s and 70s. The series pitted Rob Reiner’s liberal hippie against Carrol O’Conner’s World War II generation racist hardhat. The same tactics are now used in movies like The Bird Cage, which is the Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner for the 1990s. In this film, wackiness ensues after the son of a homosexual night club owner gets engaged to the daughter of a prominent social conservative senator. The right wing senator and his wife want to meet the new in-laws, so they schedule a visit. Embarrassed by his limpwristed father’s partner, the son asks them to “pass” for straight during the visit. But the masquerade falls apart. The movie ends, of course, with the wrong-headed homophobic senator coming around to tolerance. The television comedy Will and Grace also uses laughter to promote tolerance for homosexuality.
With such a serious subject though, comedy is not enough. The masses must shed some tears and get angry at the Man. Tom Hanks plays a gay man in Philadelphia, who contracts AIDS after a one-night-stand in a porno-theater. Using trumped-up charges, his boss fires him, so he sues. In court we probe the depths of homophobic prejudice, as his boss finally comes clean about why he really fired the Opera singing Hanks. Hillary Swank won an academy award for her portrayal of Tina Brandon (Boys Don’t Cry), a transsexual martyred by evil homophobic rednecks in the wilds of Nebraska. Queer Like Folk is a look inside the lives of young, hip, homos, as they engage in loose sex in the big city. It’s a sort of Sex In The City for those who are light in the loafers.
Then there is American Beauty. Beauty, which won Best Picture for 1999, is the brainchild of gay writer Alan Ball. Ball is a day before yesterday hippie, whose warped values were picked up during The Summer of Love back in 1967. In the movie, Kevin Spacey’s Lester is an ordinary suburbanite who is burnt out on his job and his boring life. His wife hates him; his daughter doesn’t respect him. Lester dreams of being a child again-hanging out, listening to music, doing bong hits. Inspired by a vision of having sex with his teenage daughter’s friend, Angela, Lester quits his advertising job and signs on down at Burger King, because he wants “as little responsibility as possible.” Now he spends his days pumping iron in the garage and smoking high quality grass, purchased from a neighbor kid, Ricky.
Ricky is Ball’s hero. Caught smoking pot three years earlier, Ricky gets urine-tested by his Marine Corp Colonel father every month. Naturally, the father is the villain in Beauty. He collects Nazi dinnerware, oppresses his mindless wife, and bitches continually about the country “going straight to hell.” Why is the country going to hell? Because of “fags.”
After the Colonel witnesses Ricky selling Lester a bag of pot, he mistakenly believes his son is one of those “fags,” and Lester is paying him for sexual services. So he beats his son silly, and kicks him out of the house. Then he decides to go next door and confront Lester, who is pumping iron in the garage. Noticing the rain-soaked Colonel outside, Lester opens to see what he wants. Instead of pummeling Lester, the Colonel tries to kiss him. But Lester deflects his advances. Here, Ball makes his point: Mr. Homophobic Marine Corp Conservative Colonel is actually concealing homosexual tendencies behind his hostile exterior. Chagrined at being “outed,” the Colonel gets his gun and splatters poor Lester’s brains on the wall.
American Beauty is an important film because it provides you an unobstructed view into the Hollywood mind. Since the 1960s the drug culture has devastated millions of lives in this country. But there is no lesson in that for Alan Ball, not at all. His film repackages the same rotten message Timothy Leary used to poison an entire generation back in the 1960s: “Tune in, turn on, and drop out.” Ambition, maturity, responsibility, family, morality, are bad things. It’s better never to grow up. It’s better to be a forty-year-old burger flipper, who hangs out and smokes dope all day. Everything will work out in the end because “all you need is love,” as the Beatles told us. And Ball’s tactic in promoting homosexuality is equally juvenile. It’s a variation on the time-honored kindergarten taunt, “I know you are, but what am I.” He is saying that conservatives who oppose the normalization of homosexuality are actually closeted drag-queens. By day, they cover themselves with the mantle of traditional morality, but at night, they dress up like Ethel Merman and sing show tunes. If, as Ball contends, you are what you hate, then Ball must actually be a closeted conservative militarist, who collects Nazi memorabilia.
The most recent homosexual cause film is Brokeback Mountain, which won Best Director, and was the featured cause film for the 2005 Oscars. Trying to break the stereotype of effete homosexuals gyrating to house music in San Francisco, Brokeback Mountain’s two homosexual lovers are Middle American sheep ranchers in Wyoming. The story is about true love trying to survive in a bigoted world that condemns such relationships. It’s Romeo and Juliet for hillbilly homosexuals. Next, Hollywood will tell the story of two Green Berets, who are forced to hide their canoodling in an atmosphere of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Bigoted colonels, comedy, cowboys-it’s all camouflaging used to conceal a polemic. These films were made for one purpose: to convince the audience that homosexuality is normal, natural, and anyone who opposes it is an evil bigot.
Third, promoting abortion as an essential human right is another cause at the top of Hollywood's agenda. Targeted at teenagers, Fast Times at Ridgemont High portrays a sex-curious girl sleeping her way around high school, until finally she gets pregnant. After her paramour refuses to go halves with her on an abortion, her sympathetic older brother drives her to the friendly neighborhood abortion mill. The moral of the story: use contraception while you indulge in the expected round of high school sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, and don't sleep with boys who won't foot the bill if you need an abortion. If These Walls Could Talk follows the abortion stories of several women in order to show that abortionists perform an essential humanitarian service. The movie Cider House Rules has Michael Caine playing a country doctor (Dr. Karch) who runs an orphanage and provides illegal abortions for the local girls in 1940's Maine. Up in years, Dr. Karch is grooming Homer (played by Tobey McGuire) to take his place. But Homer is not hip on becoming an abortionist, so he runs away up-state to work on an apple farm making cider. There Homer befriends a family of migrant workers who run the cider house. When he's not teaching Homer the ins -and -outs of making cider, the father is sexually molesting his teen age daughter, Rose. Of course, Rose becomes pregnant. Homer discovers the terrible secret. He wrestles briefly with his conscience, but finally offers to "help." Performing the abortion on Rose, Homer finds his calling and returns to the orphanage to take his place as the friendly neighborhood abortionist. Accepting his Oscar for Best Supporting actor (1998), Caine gave a little speech about the noble services that abortionists provide for women. On cue, the Hollywood elite gave him a standing ovation. Vera Drake is another polemic about the necessity of abortion-on-demand.
Most of these films show abortion as not necessarily a good thing, but a necessary thing. However one may feel about the morality of abortion, it is an option that women sometimes need. In other words, Hollywood is indoctrinating Americans with the so-called “pro-choice” argument.
On these three issues-traditional Christianity, homosexuality, abortion- you would think that in a “diverse,” “democratic” society, where “all voices are heard,” there would be some diversity of opinion in the pop-culture. Not at all. On these issues that still divide the American people in the political and social arena, there is no division in Hollywood. The message is uniform: traditional Christianity is intolerant, homosexuality is normal, and abortion is an essential human right. Polls show that a good percentage of Americans still believe that there is something immoral about homosexuality. And an overwhelming 72 percent are opposed to gay marriage.29 But in the last 30 years there hasn’t been one Hollywood film that portrays homosexuality as immoral; and Hollywood will never make a film in the future that makes the case against gay marriage. Depending on how the question is asked, some polls say 40 percent of Americans oppose legal abortions; in other polls 60 percent oppose legal abortions.30 But there has never been a Hollywood film that has portrayed the pro-life cause in a favorable way. On the contrary, the worst villains in Hollywood films are traditional Christians who oppose homosexuality and abortions.
Almost every major social change in the past seventy years has been the product of governmental-legal decrees coming from above in conjunction with social engineering through mass media propaganda. Let's take a look at the results of Hollywood's latest engineering project. According to a recent poll, Americans between the ages of nineteen and twenty-seven favor liberal causes over conservative causes. By a ratio of 52 to 36, young people say the Democratic Party represents their moral values better than the Republican Party. Asked how they view the two parties, 58 percent had a favorable view of the Democrats, while only 38 percent has anything good to say about the Republicans. Although only 28 percent of all Americans support gay marriage, 44 percent of the young people in the poll favor allowing homosexuals to marry. And an overwhelming 75 percent said abortion should be legal- 38 percent with some restrictions on the practice, 37 percent with no restrictions at all.31 When young people went to the polls on November 4, 2008 they expressed these opinions. Sixty-six percent of voters under thirty years old pulled the lever for the Marxist Barack Obama. Obama wants gays in the military. He supports passage of the Choice Act, which would do away with all state laws limiting access to abortion and provide taxpayer funding for abortions. Obama is by far the most left-leaning elected official in American history, yet he skated into the White House on smooth ice. The youth of America worship the man like a god. And in the hotly contested battle to preserve traditional marriage in California, the majority of young people voted to allow homosexual marriage.
Those men and women who graduate from the “finest” universities in the country, who will go on to dominate the institutions of power in this nation, are almost universally card-carrying liberals. This is because their professors are almost universally card-carrying liberals. These professors articulate the leftist opinions they received from the pop-culture. The quarterly magazine Academic Questions recently did a survey of college professors to discover their political leanings. Registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a margin of 10 to 1. At Columbia University and Yale the ratio is 14 to 1; at Brown it is 30 to 1.32 The loneliest place on this planet for a young person today is the Conservative Club at Brown University.
So what happened? Why are young Americans so liberal? Did they research the issues and arrive at their opinions after some deep thinking? Or were these opinions pumped into them like lubricant? I believe a close look at the typical twenty-something will answer these questions. He spends most of his time playing video games; she spends her time watching talk shows. His hat is backward; her midriff is showing. He has a tribal band tattoo; she has a nose ring. He imitates the mannerisms of inner-city street urchins; she butt dances and has friends-with-benefits. He physically attacks anyone who “dises” (disrespects) him; she tells people to “talk to the hand.” Things he likes are “sweet”; to her they’re “hot.” Despite growing up in a so-called advanced society, he and she adopt this vulgar, degraded image because the pop-culture tells them to. If they don’t adopt this image, they are labeled “dorks.” The “individuality” the pop-culture attaches to this “hip” or “cool” image is part of the package. Their image has been issued to them like a uniform. If one day Hollywood decrees it “cool” to wear dead marsupials around the neck, they’ll be the first in line down at the mall to buy their very own stiff possum, with a Tommy Hilfiger name brand attached. The suggestion that most nineteen to twenty-seven year olds arrive at their political opinions after a process of deep contemplation is laughable. The Jon Stewart Show and Saturday Night Live offer serious political commentary in their world. They got their opinions from the same place they got their Che Guevara T-shirt and nose ring- from the pop-culture. And if they go to college, they’ll have these opinions articulated for them by leftist professors.
Some conservatives will say that the views of these young adults will change as they mature with age and responsibility. They remember growing up in the 1960’s with long hair, smoking dope, no job, bad-mouthing their country. But reality later forced them to cut their hair, get a job, and start voting. When they did these things their outlook became more conservative. This is true. That is exactly why communists like Lenin and Mao preached continual revolution. They believed that revolutionary zeal must be continually renewed or it will fade. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a Marxist revival. Revolution is a continual process of advances and retreats. As long as the trend is forward toward the classless society, victory is assured. To use the language of Marxism-with every two steps forward, a revolutionary should expect to take one step backward.
It was the same with the 1960’s generation. The utopian idealism of the sixties had to modify itself in the face of reality. But the core ideals remained with the majority of Baby-boomers. It’s up to the true believers to inspire the next generation. Eventually, they believe, “progress” will triumph over “reaction.”
A good example of what I’m talking about is seen in two recent television programs put out by the History Channel: “History of Sex” and “The Hippies.” By contrasting the sexually “liberated” values of other cultures with the “repressed” values of Western Culture, the object of the “History of Sex” is to show how Christianity has twisted our sex lives. This is typical Marxist free love doctrine. “The Hippies” shows us how a noble attempt to create the ideal communist community was ultimately doomed to failure in an evil capitalist society. But despite their failure, the hippies had a positive impact on American culture because they helped to shape our current tolerant opinions of divorce, live-in relationships, having children out of wedlock, abortion and homosexuality. The wonderful hippies helped sew the “alternative lifestyle” into the fabric of American society, says the History Channel. In this sense, they are absolutely correct.
The two individuals responsible for the “History of Sex” and “The Hippies” are actor Peter Coyote and the History Channel’s resident historian Steve Gillon. Both are ex-hippies, children of the Haight Ashbury District. Back in the late 1960’s they were moonstruck flower children. Time forced them to cut their hair and emerge from the LSD induced fog. But even though reality has moderated their opinions, it has not changed them. And the “History of Sex” and “The Hippies” are the product of the opinions they received forty years earlier during the Summer of Love.
It’s the same with the present generation. Early on, they’re given a full dose of the pop-culture’s egalitarian poison, and it will naturally dissipate a little over a life time. Most, however, will never fully purge themselves of the original dose. And the true believers will pass the poison on to the next generation. Only a small percentage will fully repudiate these leftist opinions, because that requires independent thought. The vast majority will only moderate their opinions as they age. The key to the process is control over the big bullhorn, the cultural hypodermic needle. With that control the egalitarians can continue to inject their opinions into each succeeding generation, thus controlling public opinion and the political process. It doesn’t matter that these opinions are at odds with reality. To some extent man’s opinions have always been at odds with reality. After 2,500 years of contact with reality, half of Asia is still poisoned with Buddhism. Witness the overwhelming support among young people for Barack Obama. He is the multicultural Marxist Messiah that the media has prepared young children to accept.
Conservatives have been confined to an informational concentration camp. For almost half a century they have been kept away from the big bullhorn. In order to control American Society today, you must control mass-man. And to control mass-man you must control the mass media. Conservatives do not. If your opinion isn’t heard in the mass media arena, it is only a matter of time before your opinion isn’t heard in the political arena as well. When the egalitarians seized hold of the federal government in 1933 and began to monopolize the mass media, they were a small minority in this country. But through their control of the media, they have increased their numbers dramatically. They have changed public opinion, and have engineered a new American Society. Sinclair Lewis warned his fellow socialists back in 1935 that the Roosevelt regime had shallow roots, and it was possible an American conservative could come along and sweep them into the dust bin of history. Roosevelt recognized this fact. He warned that Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur was “one of the most dangerous men in the country.”33 Roosevelt was saying that Mac Arthur was dangerous to the new regime’s existence. Unfortunately, MacArthur and other conservatives in the 1930’s never saw the handwriting on the wall. They didn’t realize that the Roosevelt regime signaled a revolutionary change in American government. And if the regime was left in power, conservatives such as themselves would eventually be the ones swept into the dust bin of history.
So what will be the results of the Establishment’s plan to engineer conservativism out of the mainstream? If unabated, the result will be exactly as Peter Singer predicted. Within thirty years those who believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, who believe homosexuality is immoral, who believe abortion is murder will be viewed by the overwhelming majority of Americans the same way segregationists are viewed today. The handwriting is on the wall and it has been there for over seventy years now. Because our grandfathers were too stupid to read it is water under the bridge. The only question facing the conservative today is are you willing to abate the process. Because if you are not, then you had better start searching for real estate in the mountains of Idaho, right next door to the last 125 segregationists in the Western world, because thirty years from now that is the only place where you will be permitted to talk such heresy.
Chapter 5 References
1. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 186
2. David M. Kennedy, Freedom From Fear, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) p. 771
3. National Review, (March 19, 2007) p. 45
4. Matthew 1: 20 (The New American Bible)
5. Matthew 3
6. John 14: 6
7. Matthew 13
8. Matthew 24 and 25
9. Matthew 5: 17-20
10. Matthew 4: 17
11. Matthew 22: 21
12. Mark 7: 29 and Matthew 8: 5-13
13. Mark 13 and Matthew 24
14. Mark 2: 23-28
15. John 8: 58-59
16. Mark 8: 31
17. Mark 11: 15-18
18. Matthew 21, 22, 23 and Mark 12
19. Mark 14: 1
20. Mark 14: 10-11
21. Mark 14: 53
22. Mark 14: 61-63
23. Mark 15: 10
24. Matthew 27: 19
25. Matthew 27: 20
26. Luke 23: 19
27. Matthew 27: 23
28. Matthew 28
29. New York Times, MTV, CBS News (June 26, 2007) Poll of Social Issues
32. National Review (Dec. 19, 2005) p. 104
33. David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 237
To return to the Army of God homepage click here.
To return to Eric Rudolph's Homepage Click here
For Abortion: The Irrepressible Conflict in pdf for easy read or printable form, click here. 76 pages