I just read through the lyrics for the song “Samaritan” by ionnalee, and it’s anti-Christian, with a hefty bit of whining about her fans being “impatient” for new material from her. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, my post “Beyonce is not a goddess” explains it all. This line pissed me off:
“I don’t believe in a god, let’s leave religion out of all this”
Really? Because first of all, you shamelessly used imagery from MY religion in your work. YOU brought up religion, not us. You don’t get to steal from my religion without me or anyone else having something to say about it.
Also…what a serious, hardcore first world problem. So a handful of fans are impatient? So the fuck what? Shouldn’t you be focusing on, oh I don’t know…your music? Your career? Your social life?
She doesn’t mention the Christian god, but it’s obvious as to who she is talking about. Liberals think they can simply say “god” and “religion” so as to later claim that they’re not trashing Christianity, they’re trashing all of religion.
Yet, as I said, the teaser video contains Christian imagery. The lyrics contain Christian imagery. Therefore, she’s talking about Christianity.
I have no problem with atheists, but I do have a problem with people who hate Christianity and try to turn it into something it’s not, which she has clearly done.
I haven’t watched the video for the song, nor have I listened to the song itself (it’s on Spotify, if you’re curious) and I have no desire to do either. I’m done.
And for that matter, neither is Jonna Lee, aka ionnalee. I don’t really listen to mainstream music, opting for obscure musicians from around the world. One of my favorites is a Swedish audio/visual project called iamamiwhoami, led by Jonna Lee (who had a solo career before starting iamamiwhoami). This group made their debut in late 2009 with a series of cryptic videos posted on YouTube, and branched out into doing whole albums and accompanying films. It’s really very interesting, if you like electronic music. Their YouTube channel is here and you can peruse this fan-made Wikia page if you want to know more.
Jonna Lee is starting a new solo project, called ionnalee, with costumes by COMME des GARÇONS (it’s supposed to be a collaboration between the two, but whatever). A “trailer” for this new project debuted earlier today, along with this snippet:
Buffeted by imposing, almost marching-band beats but sweetened by Lee’s upfront vocals, SAMARITAN tackles culture’s fascination with idolising and worshipping female artists.
“There’s an underlying strive for female artists to live up to a real unhealthy ideal and I think it’s my responsibility to do what I can to change that.”
Now here is the trailer:
If you don’t want to watch it, let me summarize it for you. Pretty little popstar is all dressed in white, then the pretty little popstar does something Bad (gets too sexual, or Questions Authority) and the masses betray the pretty little popstar, opting to burn her at the stake for her heresy.
But, like St. Lucy, she does not burn. Instead, she dances, or something. So what does this mean? Well, it looks like the usual Religion is So Bad, It’s Killing Everything Good or some such nonsense, despite what the quote above says.
I wanted to talk about the fact that a great deal of people in the West worship these popstars. It’s not just women, by the way. Justin Bieber fans are totally crazy. Back in the ’00s, the Nick Carter and Justin Timberlake fangirls were just as crazy. These days, the vast majority of popstars – and actors – are idols worshipped by the masses. Despite the almost certain anti-Christian message, I think Jonna Lee has a point about the idolization of singers and the unrealistic expectations put on them and other public figures.
The Unhealthy Ideal
We’ve heard this before. Actresses and female singers are too thin, Photoshopped to within an inch of their lives and are expected to look their best at all times. When they aren’t, they’re mocked. To be honest, the same applies to men, but not as much. I’ve seen pictures of a portly Jack Nicholson and the late Ted “Vast Teddy” Kennedy. I recently saw pictures of French actor Gerard Depardieu – man, he’s huge. People mocked Val Kilmer’s weight gain too.
Women aren’t the only ones expected to look “perfect” – men get shit on too. But feminists only ever complain about what it does to women. It is true that society expects the absolute best of our public figures, and that it often drives these people crazy trying to live up to that ideal.
On the other hand, glorifying obesity is not the answer. Not at all, and I’m getting sick and tired of this “body positivity” campaign because it amounts to nothing more than the glorification and acceptance of obesity, which is very unhealthy and, well, gross.
We need to find a healthy medium, and singers like Jonna Lee are rarely brave enough to say, “well, we shouldn’t kill ourselves trying to look like tall supermodels, but being healthy is the most important thing, and obesity is not healthy.”
But the ideal she is speaking of might not have to do with weight at all. It might have to do with the singer’s image as it pertains to morality and stuff. I am a few months younger than Britney Spears, so I kind of grew up with her. I wasn’t a fan – instead, I was a “hater” – I couldn’t stand the girl because she had a terrible singing voice, was a skank and was absolutely everywhere. If she hadn’t been so overexposed, I might not have felt as strongly as I did.
I bring her up because her image was very controversial, especially in 1999 and 2000, right around when her debut single “Baby One More Time” got big. She acted like a good Southern girl in interviews, and yet did that supposedly sexy video for “Baby One More Time” (I didn’t see the sex appeal; her schoolgirl outfit looked like a reject from Clueless, complete with the dated thigh-high stockings). Reporters actually asked her if she had lost her virginity. They asked her if she gave it up to Justin Timberlake (who, at the time, was a member of the other big boy band of the era, ‘NSYNC). Then there was the endless speculation as to whether or not she got breast implants.
Britney Spears slowly got more sexualized with each album release, culminating in the infamous kiss she did at the 2003 VMAs. Her fans would whine and cry about how us “haters” were so judgmental, calling her a skank and whatnot. By the way, she had one particularly heinous fan that I’ll get into later on.
People either saw her as the ultimate sex symbol or the nastiest skank to have ever lived. At the time, it seemed as if there was no middle ground. Then the meltdown happened and her career started to fade away, and now she’s lipsyncing a big Las Vegas extravaganza. Yes, she’s not even forty years old and she’s already doing a Vegas residency, and to top it all off, she’s not actually singing at those concerts.
But she seems to be doing okay, given all that’s happened, and I feel a little bad for her, because those years she spent at the top of the music industry could not have been easy. First, everyone’s all “omg ur so hot britney” and then, as soon as she gains a little weight, “omg britney ur so fat, lol” – it must have been crazy, and that’s putting it mildly.
So there is that, although I do not think that these days, female singers are exorciated in the media for being too sexy. Even back in 2000 it wasn’t like that for most singers, except for Britney. Christina Aguilera would often try way too hard to generate the kind of controversy Britney generated, but instead came across as a demented skank, which is too bad because she’s got an amazing voice.
If you’ve read anything else I’ve written, you know that I’m personally pretty conservative. I don’t sleep around, I don’t do one night stands, and I don’t wear skimpy clothes. I barely talk about anything with anyone, and I certainly wouldn’t discuss anything sexual with total strangers.
Feminists are still under the impression that they’ll be persecuted for wearing a short skirt in public. They constantly whine about how they aren’t allowed to be sexual. I don’t know what world they’re living in, because most Christians don’t care if Katy Perry goes topless in a music video. They don’t care if Rihanna gives virtual blow jobs at her concerts. They don’t care if Miley Cyrus makes out with girls in her videos. They just don’t give a damn anymore. There’s no Moral Majority hanging around with pitchforks and torches, ready to freak out over Madonna’s (dusty and wrinkled) nipple.
But feminists are predictable, and of course, I bet that this is the message ionnalee will impart on her audience – that we prudish Christians are making life hard for female singers, expecting them to not be sluts or something. Cue eyeroll.
These People Are Not Gods
However, she does make mention of how people worship these female singers, and if you are at all familiar with iamamiwhoami’s work, you won’t be surprised at this. Jonna Lee has what I consider a slightly contentious relationship with her fans. The audiovisual film KIN and BLUE were all about the expectations people have for musicians and the incredible and inspiring feedback the musician gets from their fans, respectively. The audiovisual film BOUNTY seems to have used the mandragora myth to depict how the music industry uses female musicians, so she isn’t really saying anything new with this.
I can understand her frustration with the kind of fans that post on their YouTube channel or in the comments section for individual videos, insisting that they release more content. I don’t think the iamamiwhoami fans are that demanding, though. On the other hand, some of these fans are a little overzealous. Dare to criticize any part of the project, and they freak out. Well, in the case of iamamiwhoami, not very many people lose their shit over disagreements, but there’s other fandoms that are just one french fry short of a happy meal. Seriously.
Back when I was a Britney Spears “hater” there was this one girl, also named Britney, that posted at a message board I also posted at. The board was dedicated to talking shit about popstars we hated. I can’t even remember the name of the board. This girl made the huge mistake of posting on a Britney fan board, telling the fans that Britney can’t sing and whatnot. They, understandably, took issue with that. I mean, come on. I’m not interested in reading whole threads about how much someone hates my favorite musician, but from what I remember she wasn’t even that bad about it. I don’t know, the situation just escalated.
What happened next absolutely enraged me, and still does to this very day. One of the Britney fanboys started stalking the girl. Found out that she had been raped, found her pictures, discovered her real name and started making crude parodies of Britney album covers, mocking the fact that this girl had been raped. They gave her a stage name, referring to something she wore in one of her pictures. I won’t even bother listing the stage name. I don’t want to subject this girl to further harassment, because it is still ongoing.
It’s been over a decade and this person is still stalking her, all because she dared to criticize Britney Spears on their turf. Normal people would just report the so-called “hater” to the board admins and get their account banned and MOVE ON, but no, not these people. Talk about worshipping a popsinger. This is beyond worship, this is flat-out fanaticism. After all, the word “fan” is short for “fanatic” and some of these fanboys and fangirls meet the definition for fanatic.
But Britney is far from the only singer to have demented, insane fans. Lady GaGa has crazy fans too, some of which seem to worship her entirely unironically. A few years ago, right around the release of Born This Way, she did some sort of collaboration with Office Depot in support of her charity, the Born This Way Foundation. It was, ostensibly, to fight bullying. That’s when the worship reached a fever pitch. People were saying that GaGa’s music saved their lives, and that she was their savior. They said she was just as much of a hero as a fireman or a veteran, all because she ripped off Madonna’s “Express Yourself” to make her own hackneyed gay rights anthem.
Lady GaGa fans and Madonna fans regularly fight one another over which one is better, and over which one is the biggest rip off artist.
Beyonce fans are the craziest at the moment. They call themselves the Beyhive, and they attack anyone that dares to criticize their idol. They attacked Kid Rock, they attacked Rachel Roy and Racheal Ray after mistaking the latter for the former, they attacked Kim Kardashian and they attacked some random reporter. Just do a search on your favorite search engine for Beyonce fans attacking people.
Some of these fandoms have names too, like the aforementioned Beyhive for Beyonce fans, Little Monsters for Lady GaGa, Beliebers for Justin Bieber, Barbies for Nicki Minaj, etc. I think Deadheads for the Grateful Dead were the originals, and they weren’t a pack of nutjobs ruining people’s lifes for daring to criticize their idol.
That’s the problem right there. What do you care if someone doesn’t like your favorite musician? So the fuck what? If iamamiwhoami’s music isn’t to your taste, that’s fine! It’s no skin off my back. Maybe it’s because I’m a grown woman. After all, when I was in junior high, I lost it whenever someone criticized Sailor Moon, my favorite anime. Now? I don’t really care if someone thinks Sailor Moon sucks. My cousin laughed at Sailor Moon when he saw it for the first time, and I realized that yeah, it can be kind of goofy at times, but it doesn’t diminish my enjoyment of it.
I am not buying the notion that these are all a bunch of kids. Some of them might very well be kids, but most of them are probably college age and older. Either way, these people need to grow the hell up. These singers don’t even know you’re alive. They don’t know you, and you don’t know them. They don’t need to you defend them. They will survive if someone criticizes them, trust me.
Vote Hillary Because Katy Perry Says So!
Popstars getting political pisses me off so much. I’ve already touched on this here, so I won’t say much more about this.
I think Democrats worship their politicians. I really do. Witness the past couple of months, or rather, the aftermath of the 2016 election. Of course, the primary reason for the Democrat devastation is that they thought they were gonna make history again, but Destiny was thwarted. Hillary would not be the First Female President.
Look at it this way – to liberals their Democratic candidate is God. The Republican candidate is always Satan. It’s as if Satan actually won, and that the Bible is a book full of lies. Wouldn’t you be devastated? I would be. Of course, that does not excuse their ridiculous “protests” (more like mob violence) and the demented things they’ve said. But their god has failed them. Of course they’re upset, and they have only themselves to blame.
Why they even respect the Democrats is beyond me. They’re all just as rich as the nebulous Wall Street Billionaires they’re bitching about all the time. Their lifestyles are just as decadent, and in some cases probably more so. Some of them, like the odious Harry Reid, are at least borderline racist, if not outright racist. And some of them are hopelessly stupid (like that guy who thought that too many troops on Guam would make the whole island tip over).
But, as Ann Coulter says, abortion is their sacrament, and they love them some free shit, so a Democrat can be a decadent rich piece of shit and still get craploads of votes.
So what will be the message of Samaritan?
That’s the name of the first single from ionnalee, by the way. It’ll probably be some bullshit feminist subversion of the story of St. Lucy, Christians will be demonized and I will be bitterly disappointed becuase I really liked this group, even though I know they’re extreme leftists.
This is long enough, so I will say this in closing: I am grateful that both she and I have the right to express ourselves. I wish she’d be more concerned about what’s happening in her own home country, with girls and women like her being terrified to leave their homes for fear of being raped by migrants. But I am glad that no Christian will want to throw acid in her face for criticizing Christianity. Nothing bad will happen to her, and nothing bad will happen to me (I hope) and to be honest, that’s what free speech is all about. Give and take. Speak and someone responds.
It’s like, 5:40 in the morning and I cannot sleep. I have to wake up at 6:30 am to get ready for work and some strange things have been happening, like my TV turning on randomly to a different input than the one I left it in (and to top it all off, it tuned in to the Fox News Channel during a report on Kim Jong Un assassinating his own uncle).
So I can’t sleep, and when I can’t sleep, I usually grab my iPhone and start wandering the Web. So I found this. It’s kind of old – published in February of 2013, and it’s about that stupid Austrian actor again. Sigh. I will put the rest of this behind a cut if you don’t care.
Milo Yiannopolous’s book Dangerous, originally slated for a March 2017 release, has now been canceled. His publisher was Simon & Schuster, on the Threshold Editions imprint. Cucks. Total cucks, but that is no surprise. At all.
I also want to note that the release of the book had been pushed to a June 2017 release before its cancellation. I think that may have been due to Milo wanting to add something about the Berkeley riots. I had thought it strange and annoying, as I had preordered it and was seriously looking forward to reading it.
I have nothing more right now, as I’m angry. I shouldn’t be, I guess, but I am. The media has been accusing him of being things he is not, and this latest charge is just as untrue as the rest. So all I have is this:
So recently, Christina Applegate posted a series of tweets complaining about how many Trump supporters and others on the Right hate it when celebrities make political statements. She said – quite rightly, although I am reluctant to give this stupid woman any credit at all – that they were entitled to an opinion and had the right to express it.
Which, as I said, is true. I don’t entirely feel comfortable slinging around the “shut up and sing” slogan because I so passionately believe in the First Amendment. I also believe that these celebrity idiots are no better than we are. If we have the right to say something, then so do they.
But I also understand why many of us on the Right tell them to “shut up and sing” – their opinions are usually nothing more than ill-informed insults and/or grandiose, narcissistic grandstanding (like Kerry Washington’s “like, I’m not just an actress – I’m an activist and it’s totally my duty to tell you who to vote for and demonize whitey!” statements on the red carpet).
What many celebrities spew is no different than the insane screeds you might read at Democratic Underground or the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos, or whichever idiot leftist site you might be thinking of right now. Seriously, take a good look at any thread at DU and then compare it to the stupid bullshit washed up idiots like Shia LeDouche (heh) say on a regular basis. It’s basically the same.
Even so-called intellectual Viennese actors spew idiotic, childish, and dare I say, infantile bullshit. Normally, whenever I read the stupidity at DU or in the comment sections of most political blogs, I roll my eyes and move on.
But not when an actor starts spewing their bullshit. Why? Just a few days ago I was pondering this, and I figured out why.
Actors, musicians, authors, etc enjoy one thing that the average cretin at DU does not – a big, huge, influential platform. Lady GaGa’s upcoming Super Bowl performance will generate a shitload of publicity. She has already announced that it will indeed be “political” because she believes in tolerance, compassion, etc (and will basically accuse anyone who is remotely concerned about illegal immigration of racism and hatred – essentially acting like a raging hypocrite) and wants those values to be reflected in her performance. It’ll be all over the place, just like Beyonce’s idiotic performance last year (which, contrary to what my grandparents think, WAS a tribute to the Black Panthers).
I can put up with the deranged rantings of a DUer. They have little to no influence on, well, anything. But when an actress or musician goes, “punch Nazis, lol” then someone on this planet will surely do exactly as they command. And since anyone that disagrees with a liberal is now essentially a Nazi, that means each and every one of us on the Right is in danger of being assaulted by some deranged, idiotic, celebrity worshiping moron.
This, more than anything, is why I hate it when celebrities say anything about politics. I have to hear or see their bullshit all over the place. It’ll be on the local news, it’ll be all over my Facebook, Twitter and Gab feeds. It’ll be breathlessly reported on at all of the websites I frequent. It’ll be on the entertainment news shows (not that I watch those) and reported on in magazines.
And nobody, NOBODY (save the right-wingers on social media networks and on the websites I visit) will challenge their shit. Nobody will fact check them. Nobody will point out how utterly asinine and insane they are. No, the mainstream media will worship at the altar of these stupid morons, praising them and enthusiasically agreeing with them.
This, of course, will be brought up in 2018, just in time for the midterms. And then in 2020, perfectly timed for the Presidential election.
That’s why I was so gobsmacked and shocked at Trump’s victory. The celebrities and the asshats in the MSM went all-out to demonize Trump and his supporters whilst building up and deifiying Hillary Clinton (because, after all, she was going to be the First Female President – history will be made again you guys!!!). One stupid ad after the other…one stupid “FUCK TRUMP” statement at various award shows and in magazines after the other. All of this stupid bullshit and for once, it amounted to absolutely nothing. It was wonderful. It felt like a new day…hell, like a new age.
But I’m not used to all this winning. I’m used to losing, to be honest. I’m used to the rug being pulled out from under me. It’s been that way for the past eight years. The Bush years were no picnic either. Celebrities bitched about Bush too. Back then, they sounded like the average DU poster – nothing but idiotic, childish insults and gross hyperbole. Now it’s the same damn thing. Bush was reelected, at least, but at that time, the Iraq war had only been raging for a year and some months.
I know not all celebs are like that, but precious few are reasonable about their political views. I am totally okay with you being liberal. After all, most of my family are liberals, and I’m still close to them. What makes me angry are the baseless insults that get amplified by a hypocritical press who act like it’s a good thing that an entire group of people is smeared and slandered.
Why can’t these people express their opinion without being assholes about it? Here, I can help you. If only a liberal could say, “well, I understand that people are concerned about terrorists sneaking in amongst the refugees, but I would feel terrible if we turned away someone who genuinely needed asylum. Surely there is a middle ground that we could reach.”
See! It’s not that hard! If I can do it, so can you! I can see the issue from both sides. Both sane, rational sides. But the left is all, “ZOMG U RACIST! U HATE BROWN PPL!!! FUCK OFF AND DIE, NAZI BITCH!!!”
The frightening thing is that it works. At least, that’s how I feel anyway. Trump’s victory shows that it is possible to break away from the insidious influence of morons like Christina Applegate, Lady GaGa, Madonna, Ashley Judd and others.
Yep. Another book has been declared “problematic” because the villains in the story are non-white. This time, Veronica Roth’s latest, Carve the Mark has been deemed problematic by Justina Ireland, an author and blogger I have not heard of (not an insult; nobody’s heard of me, so it’s all good).
Why? Because the antagonistic rulers of the planet the two main characters live on happens to be brown-skinned people with a culture that seems to be inspired by Islam. This is according to Ms. Ireland. I have a copy of the book and so far I have read the first chapter, so I can only go by what she’s saying.
Ms. Ireland also mentions The Continent, the book by Keira Drake that was torpedoed before its release no thanks to a bunch of SJW book bloggers who insisted that it was raaaaaaaacist because one non-white race was described as “savage” – I wrote about that here.
Her blog post is entitled “The Continent, Carve the Mark and the Trope of the Dark-Skinned Aggressor” and it’s pretty much what you expect. Lots of whining about racism and blah blah blah. The post was also published in December of 2016, before the release of either book (The Continent was slated for a January 3 release, but was postponed after much SJW whining; it will now be published next year, after the bad guys are turned into Catholic white men, presumably).
Ms. Ireland gave a listing of all the awful characteristics assigned to the bad guys – kinky, curly hair, tribal-ish body markings, war-like, aggressive behavior, etc. Uh, this is all based on reality, people. Or, more accurately, history. Yes, Native American tribes and African tribes were really like this, and many centuries before the Europeans discovered either of them, the European tribes were like that too. SO? That’s how they were, and both authors were obviously drawing their inspiration from history.
As for Ms. Roth, she shows her ballsiness once again by daring to include Islamic characteristics in the culture of the Shotet, the antagonist tribe. Not many mainstream authors would dare offer any sort of criticism of Islam.
I have yet to read the book in its entirety, so we shall see. I’m fine with a rival or antagonistic tribe being non-white. It doesn’t bother me. That does not mean I consider non-whites to be illiterate savages or anything. Quite the contrary — I am non-white. I can claim two different Native American tribes as part of my ancestry (one of which is Cherokee. I cannot remember the other one, and yes, I am ashamed of that). But I’m not going to deny reality or history to appease anybody. Those tribes, in many ways…well, let’s say they were different. Some of their customs were just concerning to me, like the human sacrifices of the Mayans (if you were to see a picture of me, you’d recognize me as looking very Mayan, because I can claim them too, I guess. I seriously look like Lord Pacal, I really do). Maybe I’m biased because I’m a (bad) Christian.
What would bother me would be that all the non-white characters are uniformly evil, violent and stupid. Then that would be flat-out racist. You can tell if an author is blatantly racist by how they treat their non-white characters. It’s especially apparent if the characters are ridiculous, one-dimensional stereotypes. I wish I had some examples to give, but I have none.
I really hate double standards. I really, really do. If it weren’t for double standards, the left wouldn’t have any standards at all. They routinely engage in these double standards, and the culture tropes in stories are no different.
Pick a mainstream novel. Any novel. I guarantee you that ninety percent of the titles you choose will feature antagonistic characters that are white, straight Christian people that are uniformly evil and irredeemable. I’ll bet you a million dollars that those characters are flat and one-dimensional. I’ll bet you that they’re nothing more than ridiculous stereotypes. I actually have an example for you.
Jenny Pox by J.L. Bryan. It’s the first in a series, and I have not read any other books in the series because frankly, I don’t want to. But I had heard about how anti-Christian this one was, and wanted to see for myself. The critics were right.
Briefly…the story revolves around Jenny, who has a very deadly ability – her touch is lethal. She lives in the Deep South and has to wear gloves all the time so that she does not kill people. She eventually earns the ire of the Popular Girl who is this big Christian conservative. The Popular Girl goes on a radio show that’s obviously hosted by a Glenn Beck-Rush Limbaugh composite character that is fat and disgusting. The Radio Host and the Popular Girl are cardboard cutouts. They are not real people – they exist only to portray conservatives in a negative light. There is a random scene in which the Popular Girl sucks some guy’s dick – it serves no purpose other than to give some dudes wank material, and to portray Christians as hypocrites (because any Christian that has an orgasm ever is a raging hypocrite, amirite?). It’s graphic, yet totally unnecessary.
It’s been a while since I read that book, so there’s probably stuff I missed. There is also a scene in which Jenny and her friend go to some sort of Christian haunted house, and they ruthlessly mock it. I am not sure what they’re called, but Christian haunted houses don’t have the usual jump scares, like coffins, cobwebs, ghosts, etc. Instead, they have scenes of traumatic, sad stuff like the scene of a car crash caused by drunk driving, the carnage of an abortion, etc. Liberals, for some reason, absolutely hate these haunted houses.
It’s okay for Christians to be uniformly portrayed as horrible people, but doing the same to one of the left’s pet victim classes…oh, that’s bad. And more often than not, their claims of racism in such books are completely exaggerated.
I shouldn’t be surprised. These are the same people that insists upon the non-existence of Islamic terrorism. When they do acknowledge the horrible aspects of Islam, they insist we respect it in the name of “diversity” and “understanding different cultures.”
Oh, and I almost forgot. I only learned of this via r/YALit, in a thread about some book blogger burning an ARC of Carve the Mark, screenshots of which were posted to the blogger’s Snapchat. And the kicker? The Redditors at r/YALit are defending the book blogger, stating that there’s nothing wrong with burning a book. Oh no, it’s not THAT bad.
Really? Because if I were to burn a copy of, say, Simon and the Homo-Sapien Agenda you people would feel very differently. Then you’d shriek about how book burning is horrible and all.
I agree that one person burning one copy of a given book is not censorship. After all, it isn’t keeping me from reading it. However, it still strikes me as hypocritical coming from a bunch of leftists. As I said, they’re the ones usually shrieking about book burnings and censorship and whatnot.
By the way, I am not much of a book burner. I have no desire to burn any book because it’s counterproductive and it’s just…ugh, it’s just wrong. It doesn’t conjure up a positive image, unless one happens to be in Siberia or something, and has no firewood to start a fire. I’m just, once again, pointing out their hypocrisy.
So this post is already really, really long-winded. I’m going to go read Carve the Mark and once I finish it, I will post my assessment of it at my book review blog.
Way back in November, I was reading this article over on Breitbart about how ESPN has lost thousands of subscribers in October: ESPN Loses Over Half a Million Subscribers and one question popped into my head. Why does everything have to be political?
There are probably many reasons why ESPN is losing so many subscribers. It might not all be due to politics, but in the article, the ESPN ombudsman stated that the network had been tilting too far to the left lately:
ESPN Ombudsman Jim Brady, admitted that the network lurched way too far to the left in recent years, alienating many viewers.
I don’t watch sports at all, but I know how sports fans feel, if they are indeed canceling their subscriptions over the political content. It’s SPORTS, people! Why are they talking about politics at all? These days, the left has to inject their opinions in everything – music, movies, books, magazines, TV shows, fashion, and video games. Sports was the last thing they hadn’t ruined, and then Colin Kapaernick had to take a knee and now they’ve gone overboard. It’s absolutely everywhere.
Take magazines for example. I love reading fashion magazines. I’ve been reading them since I was a kid, when my mom bought me Sassy and ‘TEEN after I had ‘become a lady.’ I had a political blog about eight years ago that I kept private because I was afraid of being harassed by liberals, and back then I noticed the overwhelming bias. This year, the top fashion magazines made a big deal out of endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in their November issues. Vogue did it, Glamour did it, and Elle probably did, although I have not read that issue. Vogue made a big deal out of never having endorsed a Presidential candidate before, and that because of the “historic” nature of this one, they just had to. Vogue put Michelle Obama on the cover of the December issue and I canceled my iPad subscription (too late, because I have already paid for that issue).
These magazines never have anything nice to say about Republicans. Sure, Vogue did a piece on Sarah Palin before the 2008 election (it appeared in the February 2008 issue) and it wasn’t too bad, but their tone changed once she was selected as McCain’s running mate. Vogue has also done a piece on South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (who has been nominated as the ambassador to the UN).
The September 2012 issue of Elle had a nasty hit-piece on Republican women. I think Marie Claire has done a few pieces on Republican women, but the majority of anything mentioning Republicans or conseravtives is overwhelmingly negative. It’s fashion – why are there any political articles in these magazines? Most of them are cringingly bad anyway.
I will never, ever forget this little feature in an issue of Marie Claire. I will have to look through my archives to find out which issue it was, but it was a few years ago. It was a list of possible talking points to use when at a party. Among them was a talking point about gun rights. The suggested talking point was this (paraphrased): How does having a gun in my thong drawer keep me safe?
Really? Well, let me see. First of all, unless your thongs are all kept in your nightstand drawer, having your gun there isn’t such a great place, because it’s kind of out of reach. Seconds matter. I think that it’s only logical to have your gun as close as possible. And a thong drawer? Jesus. I don’t own any butt floss. Why not a sock drawer? Furthermore, the gun is only useful if you know how to use it. I don’t own a gun and I have never actually used one, but I would like to someday. Gun rights are very important to me. I’m short and unfit, and even if I were fit, I’m still a short woman, and can use all the help I can get.
Of course, this liberal bias is everywhere. During the Bush years, artists like Tori Amos and Pink would write songs about how much they hated Dubya. Madonna would shriek “fuck you George” at her concerts. Dita Von Teese tried to rape a George Bush look-a-like for a music video by Agent Provocateur. Green Day wrote a whole album about how horrible rednecks are, or whatever. And who could forget all of those horrible, ridiculous, one-sided anti-war movies? Most of them flopped, so maybe it is possible to forget them.
But back to the point. Sports isn’t even safe now. You cannot escape the liberal crap. They push their agenda and their opinions on absolutely everything.
Ugh. I’ve already mentioned one idiot actor on this blog, and now I’m about to foul it up with another one. So yes, everyone is talking about fake Margaret Thatcher’s ridiculous, hammy performance at some stupid awards show last night. Boo hoo, actors are sooooooo vilified! By the way, back in November I wrote a post about how the left politicizes everything and I think it’s very relevant at the moment, but I will finish it and post it tomorrow or something.
Meryl Streep said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was targeting reporters and intercepting their communications; she said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was arming Mexican drug lords, resulting in murder; she said nothing when Obama’s IRS was threatening and intimidating private citizens because of their viewpoints; she said nothing when Obama’s NSA was gathering a massive amount of telephonic activity by American citizens; she said nothing when Obama threw Israel over the cliff at the UN; she said nothing when Obama’s policies (or lack thereof) contributed to the growth of ISIS and its genocide, rape, slavery, and torture; etc.
Streep is a liberal ass and partisan who should stick to what she knows — memorizing words written by people smarter than her and then repeating them when directed to do so. She’s incapable of basic reasoning and comprehension. She also disrespected her industry and the viewing public by using the Golden Globe Awards’ ceremony to burp up her baloney, as if what she had to say was so urgent and momentous.
Oh no no no no no. NO. I read the following paragraph a few days ago and saw red:
That said, it does seem counterintuitive to advocate that there be less sex in YA and I worry that people will lump me in with the moralistic, puritanical voices of those who are likely to censor books containing sexual content due to their fear of sexuality. Of course I disagree with censorship and am all for sex positivity and the presence of sex and romance in YA novels – I just think that there’s room for multiplicity. That maybe, not every single narrative should contain sex and that maybe more YA characters should be able to get through a novel without having a single love interest or thinking that they’re freaks of nature for this reason.
First of all, the whole notion of “book banning” and the kind of censorship the idiot author is talking about is complete and utter bullshit. Books are not being “banned” in the US. Books that some people feel are inapprorpiate for children and teenagers are being “challenged” (complained about by parents and/or teachers, and in rare cases, students) and some are removed from the library shelves or school reading lists and curricula.
That does not mean the possession and consumption of said books are illegal. NO. That is not what’s happening. A book being pulled off of the shelf will not stop a given person from reading it. This is hardly censorship.
No, I did not blush. I got angrier, and was reminded of that stupid post I read on BookRiot. I just had to say something. The book in question is The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. At first glance it seems like it would be an interesting novel, given that it’s about a black girl that basically wishes for blue eyes so she can be “pretty.” Timely, too. This book is recommended by the odious Common Core program.
Then you read the excerpts (I’m not putting that crap on my blog; that excerpt from the BookRiot post is enough garbage for one post) and you’re like, “naaaah, that’s quite alright. Kids should at least read, I dunno, Mark Twain or something before reading this contemporary smutfest.” There’s incest and pedophilia in that book, which might be a tad advanced for a bunch of high school juniors.
Now, if I ever finish my novel and publish it, you’ll probably think I’m a raging hypocrite. My main character, Tara, is captured by the US government for the purposes of exploiting her psychic abilities and in the course of her captivity, is sexually abused. She also has consensual sex with her boyfriend (but it’s not graphic or gross). I don’t think that being “puritanical” and “moralistic” about sexuality or anything is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. People like me are not “afraid” of sex. I’m angry about how sex has been CHEAPENED by idiots like the BookRiot blogger. Sex is more than just some need that has to be fulfilled. It’s not like hunger or thirst. It’s more than that. It isn’t some random thing people do on a Friday night because they’re boring people with no other interests or hobbies. It’s how the human race exists. It’s the strengthening of the bond between a husband and a wife. It’s the ultimate expression of love between two people (well, one of the ultimate expressions of love). It is not a fucking political statement and it’s not, and should not, be a goddamn hobby. Stamp collecting is a hobby. Basket weaving is a hobby. Sex is not, and should not be a hobby.
I read a lot of YA. I don’t like the way sex is portrayed in very much of the genre. The girl just can’t wait until she loses her virginity, and is magically a better person once she loses it, and becomes even better the more random partners she has. There’s no word on the true purpose of sex – procreation – unless the author wants to promote contracpetion or abortion.
So we’ve got Common Core advocates pushing for kids to read stuff like The Bluest Eye and they wonder why people like me complain. Nothing Toni Morrison has written could possibly be considered exemplary literature. Nothing. Kids should read the classics FIRST, because THESE are excellent examples of literature – they’re classics for a reason. Many of today’s authors have basically taken the plots of those classics and have put their own spin on it. To have a full appreication of writing and literature, you have to read and understand the greats first.
Oh, and another thing. The difference between what I’ve written in my as-yet unpublished novel and The Bluest Eye is this:
The presence of the book on Common Core’s list, combined with Morrison’s descriptions of incest, rape, and pedophilia as “friendly,” “innocent,” and “tender” have sparked outrage in some communities.
I don’t glorify rape. I don’t make it seem friendly or innocent or tender or any other wonderful adjective you could possibly throw at it. Not just no, but HELL NO. I show it for the horror it is. Writing about these contentious subjects is a good thing, but one shouldn’t glorify or glamorize it. I cannot believe someone like Toni Morrison can write shit like that and just go about her business like nothing’s wrong.
Mainstream literature – whether it be contemporary fiction, historical fiction, or YA should not glorify stuff like this. This stuff is also too explicit for high schoolers. If that makes me a preening, moralistic busybody then so be it. I don’t care.
This is kind of late, but I just had to write some kind of response. It’s been on my mind, off and on, ever since the election, basically.
I’m just going to leave off how I found this. I just found it, and it bothered me. Austrian actor and prime Eurosnob Christoph Waltz went on Austrian TV to lament the election of Donald Trump. It is entirely in German, and this blogger was kind enough to offer this translation: “This piss-stupid insanity”
Now note, this is all a translation. I do not speak or read German, because I’m a hopelessly ignorant American. I just wanted to respond to some of the comments he made.
G: You live in Los Angeles, which has been and continues to be Democrat, but it borders on Mexico, where Trump plans to build a wall. You live in Los Angeles. Do you personally experience this division in the city?
W: No. Fortunately not. But in California, support for Trump is more in the North-East. At the border to Mexico, it’s solidly Democrat. The wall for me … I don’t know, it remains to be seen. But I can only say that for me personally, the presence of the many Latinos in Los Angeles is fortunate, because they have a completely different way of life, and a much more direct relationship with life, and with humanity.
I have bolded the bit I found offensive. Why the hell does he even remain in the US if he thinks Americans don’t have a direct relationship with life and humanity? What is that supposed to even mean anyway? What, do we use our iPhones too much? This is typical Eurosnob speak. Of course, those poor brown non-Americans are so much better than those fat, disgusting pig Yankees who spend too much money and eat too much food.
I am actually Latino, and I guess I should be flattered by this, but I am not. Instead, I am pissed off. And another thing – I highly doubt this two-time Oscar winner even has many “Latino” friends and the only “Latinos” he meets are the ones that come around to fix his plumbing or mow his lawn.
Americans want the wall because there are too many Mexicans (and other non-Americans) in this country. They aren’t just “taking our jobs” – they’re costing the taxpayers billions of dollars every year. We have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them and educate their children – in their native language no less. The United States is already in deep financial shit as it is, and these people, who have absolutely nothing but contempt for American laws and cultrue, are not helping.
A great deal of these illegals are also pretty violent, but I’ll get to that later. Did Kate Steinle’s killer have a more direct relationship with life and humanity, Mr. Waltz? I’d pay good money to have him answer that one.
G: Much has been said about social networks and the media in the US. There was massive campaigning there, and every one of Trump’s utterances was re-hashed. What is the significance of this? As an actor, you know how important PR is. Did social networks, the media, make Trump even bigger than he already was?
W: Absolutely. Absolutely, because the so-called social networks have, there are now a number of studies about this, they also have a high anti-democratic and undemocratic energy. And I doubt that this piss-stupid insanity would have been able to spread that quickly without the so-called social networks. Because it would always have gone through a bit of a critical filter. As much as one can deplore the degeneration of journalism in the digital age. If there is a critical mind in the background that does not even edit, but just filters, it already looks different. If it needs to be printed or finished for television. On the internet, everyone can spread everything immediately, no matter what it’s based on. And obviously, that makes it much easier to spread negative content, because it’s always like that.
I just chuckle at this one. He’s an old man who is terrified of social media – after all, he stated that Facebook is a step towads fascism. Sigh, yet another person who misuses the word “fascism.” Look, I’m not that enthusiastic about social media either, but I’m not stupid. If I read something, I verify it. Instead of blaming “fake news” sites, he blames it on social media spreading all this “piss-stupid insanity.” God, he lives in quite the bubble. Christoph Waltz is a true SJW. Instead of questioning what he’s read about the election so far, he doubles down. It’s obviously someone else’s fault. He, and all the other “moderate” liberals (in another interview, he actually called himself a moderate liberal, which is a laugh, considering how he enthusiastically defended Roman Polanski, of all people) still believe they’re right.
Anti-democratic? Undemocratic? Does he not realize that first of all, the United States government is not a democracy? We are a republic, with democratic elements. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Note how he does not elaborate on the nature of this anti-democratic nature. Or what this “piss-stupid” insanity is. Just that someone on this earth does not think like him, so therefore they must be insane, stupid and anti-democratic.
And he goes to defend the traditional media, because they can shape the message before it goes to print, and that somehow makes it better. The guy is either deluded or clueless.
G: Does this result in a responsibility for the culture industry or for stars who have hundreds of thousands or even more than a million followers? To call for moderation in social networks and prevent further division?
W: Of course I see a responsibility. But I always see a responsibility. I don’t see more of a responsibility than usual, just because of Trump. I argue that if we had been conscious of this responsibility earlier, then maybe we could have … maybe not changed anything, but maybe at least raise awareness. Because honestly, I see it as a deficit in awareness to fall for this kind of demagoguery.
Here’s where it gets a little scary. He does not like social media at all, and has absolutely no social media accounts. That might possibly be due to the fact that he’s no good with computers anyway.
I bolded the part that really concerns me. And what would that awareness be? Supporting Hillary? Once again, he does not elaborate, and the interviewer just lets it go, without pressing him to defend his crazy opinions.
The scary part is that he, like every other liberal Hollywood asshat, feels he has the responsibility to “raise awareness” – also known as “promoting propaganda.” So he’s apparently totally okay with being a propagandist. God forbid any American expect our government to enforce its immigration laws.
Oh, but he must be butthurt about all the mean things Trump said.
G: In his first speech, Trump has appeared conciliatory. It was a bit of a change that he went through there on stage. Do we not have to presume his innocence, give him a bit of time and say we have to wait and see, and we judge him by what he actually does?
W: You mean we declare everything he has said so far as unsaid and say forget it, it does not matter? He did not call for torture, he did not say that if one has atomic weapons, one might as well use them, he did not say Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? I mean, the list goes on forever. We just pretend this has never been mentioned and say maybe he’s actually a fun guy? Why? What has been said cannot be unsaid. And Obama himself said in his meeting with Trump that we have to work on making Trump feel welcome and that if he succeeds, the country succeeds. Really? If Trump succeeds with what he announced during his campaign, then we have reached the end.
Liberals are completely incapable of avoiding hypocrisy. They are unable to be anything but hypocrites. He is very much the kind of “subjective morals” kind of guy, especially given that ever since his Oscar-winning turn in Inglorious Basterds, he’s been typecast as a villain.
First of all, no, Trump did not call for torture, did not say that if one has atomic weapons that one should just use them, and he did not say that all Mexicans were rapists and drug dealers.
Question. Why is it okay for you to automatically write off Donald Trump (and Dick Cheney, who he believes is an “evil” Vice President) as a complex human being, but we’re not supposed to care that Roman Polanski has evaded justice for over thirty fucking years after drugging and anally raping a teenage girl? Why must I pretend that Polanski has never raped a teenage girl and that he’s a really fun guy? What Polanski has done cannot be undone. Why should any of us ignore it? Because you worked with him? Excuse me, but no. Not just no, but fuck no.
Yes, if Trump does succeed, the country will be better off. Hell, Trump’s not even in office and he’s saved 1,000 jobs. He’s getting shit done. Maybe it’s the end for your brand of libertine globalism, but it isn’t the end for America.
G: The first people to congratulate Trump were right-wing populists and despots. They were jubilant and they now expect a boost from Trump’s victory in America. You are what one could call a wanderer between cultures: you live in America, but you also live in London and in Berlin. You know Brexit, you know both those systems. As someone who really knows both sides well, do you think there is going to be this boost for right-wing populists in Europe?
W: Yes, those right-wing populists are sure to try and benefit from this media hype. That pathetic Brexit person Farage has already presented himself here and has tried to somehow heat up opinions by saying it would be a “Brexit plus plus”. Unfortunately, he was effectively right, there is no arguing with that. But the political systems are so different that it’s impossible to compare one and the other. And Mr Farage would have to explain to me again what organisation it is that the USA want to leave for their own benefit. I know that Trump has announced he would cancel or even just ignore trade agreements, to destabilise NATO if the partners don’t pay – which effectively means that he wants to turn the United States Army into an army of mercenaries. All those things … It is only tempting to make a comparison if one is after a headline.
I suppose that “despot” would happen to be Vladimir Putin. Fair enough. But it’s not like Kim Jong-Un is calling Trump and offering his congratulations. I’ll get to the bolded bit in a minute. That one also pissed me off real good.
Okay, this bit makes it painfully obvious that he just does not know what he’s talking about. Waltz does not think that Brexit has anything to do with Trump’s victory. Uh, yes it does. The two events have one important thing in common: the people’s rejection of globalism. DUH. How could you not know that? I’m not saying you have to agree with it or approve of either Trump’s victory or Brexit, but how can you not know what drove these events in the first place?
And he has some bizarre, personal vendetta against Nigel Farage. He needs to get over it. Jesus.
So, on to the bolded bit. Waltz clearly has no respect for the US armed forces. He is already on record stating that, as far as he’s concerned, the US Marine uniform has the same significance to him as the Nazi uniform. My advice to you, Mr. Waltz, if you figured out how to turn on your computer and navigate to my humble little blog: don’t say that shit to any American. You never know if the person you’re talking to is a veteran, and if they are, and you say that in their presence, they’ll kick your scrawny ass back to Vienna.
But NO, that’s not what Trump meant. At all. Trump expects the NATO nations that aren’t actually paying the money they agreed to pay when they joined the pact in the first place to, oh, I dunno, PAY UP. Are you at all aware of his actual postion on the matter? The United States is BROKE. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. We can’t afford this shit anymore. We certainly can’t afford the archaic and obsolete NATO anyway, and no, we shouldn’t have to send our troops to go bail out some European country when they aren’t even paying their fair share. Trump said that until these countries start paying what they promised to pay, we might not bother anymore. They’ll have to defend themselves. That hardly makes the US armed forces a fucking mercenary force, you asshole.
And the very last bit – get scared, y’all.
G: One more question to Hollywood: Hollywood is an opinion maker. Does the film industry need to have a stronger and more courageous way of dealing with the topic of right-wing populism?
W: Yes. Absolutely. We all need a stronger and more sensible approach to this topic. We all need to start to carefully think about how we want to shape our community and what we can bring to the table. Hollywood is an opinion maker, but Hollywood is also a multi-billion-dollar business. Hollywood has not been led by responsible opinion makers and critical thinkers for a long time. Instead, it is led by multinational corporations whose accountants and business managers dictate more or less where it’s heading. Now, that sounds worse than it is … Or maybe it is worse than it sounds, I don’t know. In any case, a lot will happen within the so-called independent scene in reaction to this.
Vox Day was RIGHT!!! SJWs, after they lie, they double down! They always fucking double down! This is WHY Trump won! Or at least one of the many reasons he won! Nobody but snotty liberals on either coast is interested in Hollywood as an opinion maker. Of course, opinion making is code for propagandizing.
Okay okay, so in another interview, he complained about people complaining about how the public expects historical films and films based on true stories to be accurate. He said this mostly during the promotion of the film Big Eyes. No, Walter Keane did not speak with a nasal Austrian accent, and yet the director, Tim Burton, felt that expecting Waltz to actually speak like an American when playing an American was unnecessary. Waltz also felt that it was unnecessary to acknowledge that yes, Walter Keane actually did some of his own artwork.
So when he performs in films like Django Unchained and Big Eyes, he’s not making historical documentaries or biographies. Nah, accuracy be damned, and yet, he now expects film studios to continue to promote the inaccurate garbage they’ve been promoting for decades because there are still people in the US capable of thinking for themselves regardless of what Hollywood has to say about anything.
So, less comic-book blockbusters and more stupid propaganda like Selma and Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave and Obvious Child and The Butler (especially this one, as the titular character didn’t actually hate the Reagans at all) and all those dreary anti-war films of the Bush era. There’s loads of films I could list, but you get the point. There’s so many it’s hard to keep track of them all, and before you freak out about Selma, my grandfather is black and grew up in the segregated South, and even he said that that movie was a load of crap.
He believes that independent films will continue to push the decidedly false liberal narrative and hopefully save the day, or some such nonsense.
One of the absolute worst aspects of American society is how much power Hollywood has, and how overwhelmingly leftist our public education is (from kindergarten all the way through graduate school). That shit got Obama elected. That shit also got Trump elected in a way because people are sick of it.
Hollywood was firmly in the tank for Hillary. They worked so hard to get her elected – for decades now, almost every single female president character was inspired by her. A great deal of positive political female characters were inspired by her. Hillary got celebrity endorsements left and right. Dozens of newspapes across the nation endorsed her. Hell, fashion magazines like Vogue endorsed her!
And yet it amounted to absolutely nothing. She lost in an electoral landslide. You must be a special kind of stupid to think that doubling-down is going to improve your situation. Spoiler alert: it won’t.
These people won’t stop. They won’t rest. They’ll continue putting out this stupid toxic crap and they’ll attack us and call us bigots who don’t have a direct relationship with life and humanity. They’ll never learn. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That’s what Ida B. Wells said. She’s so right. This isn’t over, and we’ve got to keep fighting.