No Laughing Matter

More and more people seem to be complaining about the US media and its bias. All across the blogosphere, the Websites and the Talk Radio programs people matter-of-factly refer to the dishonesty of news reporting in the Mainstream Media and clearly understand that what we now get is Leftist propaganda and not news. The same people also recognize that Hollywood and the pop stars are also signed up to this Leftist agenda. I realize that the people I am referring to are conservatives of various shades who pay close attention to politics. How many of the apolitical masses realize that the MSM is a propaganda machine is impossible to say but as conservatives have grown more aware I would venture that even many of the uncommitted have begun to distrust what they read, see and hear. Of course, for Leftists of all shades there can never be enough bias for they believe that contrary opinions are outrageous, hence the resurrection of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’. In the recent US elections, the Media bias was so blatant and confident that no-one can now argue with a straight face that Obama and McCain/Palin were treated equally.

Unfortunately no-one on the Right of politics, except the writers of this website, seems able to complete the picture by asking this relevant question. Why are all MSM outlets united by the same agenda and why is that agenda also actively pressed by all entertainers, Fashion and Advertizing Industry workers, celebrities, Pro-Sports people and Arts world people? Yes, I know there are exceptions but they are so few as to grant us the right to claim that these exceptions prove the rule. I need not list again the main items on the Media agenda because we have put them on this website many, many times and most conservatives can list them without much effort. Multi-culturalism, anti-Christian portrayal and legislation, the destruction of the traditional family, abortion-as-birth control and the normalization of sexual perversion will do for starters. We have argued in previous articles that the relentless rise to power of the Media Class began in the mid-1960’s when television and Hollywood metamorphosed in order to provide 24 hour TV entertainment in every household. At the same time news and entertainment also metamorphosed and a new Class was born with yet-to-be-realized powers. It would be another 10 years or more before this new Class acquired all of its characteristics and instinctive self-awareness that we now see so blatantly and clearly in 2008. On this website we claim that the emergence of this new Class and its rise to power is the source of what many call the Culture War, for the new Media Class seeks to impose its agenda on society by destroying the old (Christian-based) culture and replacing it with a culture that reflects it own (revolutionary) values. It should be possible, if our theory of Class is correct, to trace the emergence of the new Class in any cultural phenomenon, and we believe that this is so.

I was reminded of this by a letter in this week’s Wall Street Journal, which was headed “Comedians Blur Line Between Reality and Perception”. The writer, Philip D. Grant of Conn. was responding to an Op-Ed piece by Lee Siegel of Nov. 29th. Mr. Siegel had been commenting on “today’s policy-wonk comedians as a pervasive and influential, though not necessarily harmful component of the evolving political landscape”. As Mr. Grant pointed out “However the mostly conservative butts of the mostly liberal jokes may take exception to that characterization. As conservatives are pilloried on a daily basis by the likes of …. they find their ideas ridiculed and their candidacies marginalized, even as they masochistically grin and bear the witty put-downs.” Well said, Mr. Grant, but he gets better! “For at least four decades most ‘cutting-edge’ comedians viewed conservatives as simpletons who deserved to be sliced and diced by contemptuous humor. Liberals got to pick from a menu of stereotypes: sinister and dangerous (Goldwater, Nixon, Cheyney): stupid and bumbling (Ford, Reagan, Quayle, Bush 43, Palin); or out-of-touch and senile (Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain). In a rare moment of honest introspection, Chevy Chase recently fessed up that he relished the chance to make Gerald Ford look like one of the Three Stooges on ‘Saturday Night Live’ so he could help the candidacy of Jimmy Carter.” Mr. Grant goes on to point out that today’s comedians can create caricatures that become indistinguishable from the real candidates in voters’ minds. Thus most voters think that it was Sarah Palin who thought there were 57 states (It was Obama!). Mr. Grant’s final sentence reads “Witty, politically savvy comedians are savoring their influence, using their comedic talents to blur the line between reality and perception and advancing liberal causes and politicians. To suggest otherwise is, well, laughable”.

Mr. Grant is right to date the rise of politically biased ‘comedy’ on TV to 4 decades and all his points are valid. Yet he does not ask why we have this situation. Mr. Radical and Mr. Right have no problem with comedians poking fun at politicians, public figures and ideas though back in those distant days when comedians kept out of politics altogether they were surely funnier. The duel problems today are that comedians are rarely funny, just ‘smart’, and the poking is wholly one-sided.

George Weller in his work on the rise of the Media Class drew attention to the disappearance of England’s Benny Hill from TV at the height of his popularity. Hill was hugely popular not only in the UK but around the world, when the BBC suddenly stopped his regular series. This appeared not to matter much for he was quickly signed up by the rival Independent TV network and continued to attract record-breaking audiences. However, the Leftist (Feminazi) political-correctness crowd who rose to power in the BBC, soon took over all stations and most of the MSM and Hill suddenly was unwelcome everywhere. The working-class masses who loved him had no voice to protest and certainly no grasp of the reasons for his disappearance and it was not only Hill who was erased but the host of similar, earthy genuinely funny comedians whose stock-in-trade humor was non-political, and unpretentious. Hill was stunned and uncomprehending and did not live many more years. He and his kind were quickly replaced by a new generation of ‘cutting edge’ unfunny smart-asses whose stock-in-trade was to sneer at all things British and conservative. Nothing has since changed and nor will it for those who now decide what will get air-time have a very serious agenda. With hindsight we can see that Hill’s crime was to be politically incorrect on social issues and otherwise too nonpolitical.

What we should realize is that traditional humor has neither died nor become unpopular but is denied exposure, for the new ruling Media Class allows nothing to be shown or heard that might impede its agenda. Comedians poking fun at multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, the Leftist intelligentsia, the pretentious Arts world and its tax subsidies, Feminism, sexual perversion and Leftist politicians might strike a dangerous and popular chord and this would never do. Political incorrectness can no more be allowed in the Media than a Trotskyite would have been given voice in the USSR of the 1930’s. We will never see again shows like the funny, true-to-life, sexless, harmless ‘Bilko’ (USA) or ‘Dad’s Army’ (UK). Anything shown now must have an anti-patriotic subtext, show at least three admirable homosexuals, a Black hero and a White male villain. Today’s entertainment has no place for the reflection of life as it is or human nature but must absolutely serve the purpose of propaganda and the creation of a new world. Mr. Grant should read this website and complete his education.

The UK’s BBC was the British birthplace of the new Class and because it is tax-payer funded yet independent, it has blazed the revolutionary social trail for the UK’s Media Class. Not surprisingly it is, by its own admission, stuffed full of homosexuals and evidence of this frequently surfaces. Last week, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper (Dec 2nd 2008) revealed that John Barrowman, a one-time ‘Children’s Presenter’ and Dr. Who actor had once again talked dirty whilst on the air. Barrowman, a shameless homosexual who ‘married’ Scott Gill in a civil ceremony in 2006, is famous for “getting his willy out in interviews”, “flashing his bottom” and revealing that he once “soiled himself on stage and kicked faeces into the audience”.

There are several comments to make about this. First, the frequency of such behavior by Media homosexuals not only dulls the public’s outrage but prepares the ground for ever more ‘cutting edge’ behavior by Media people. Secondly, these people prosper in the Media world where the smart set affects only mild shock and a good deal of sly approval. Thirdly it seems that homosexuals are driven to be infantile, obsessed with anal functions and ‘in your face’ (no pun intended!) demonstrative behaviour. Finally, although Benny Hill’s traditional humor was considered to be too outrageous for the public’s entertainment, nothing is too perverted or tasteless if it promotes the new cultural revolution. Meanwhile, George O’Dowd (aka Boy George) has been found guilty by a UK jury of handcuffing and imprisoning a ‘male escort’. The latter expression is BBC-speak for ‘male prostitute who specializes in sado-masochism’. George is reported to be facing a jail term for going further with the S/M love-play than the ‘escort’ intended. I will be surprised if O’Dowd goes to jail for in the UK jail is reserved for members of the BNP who distribute leaflets that tell the truth about immigration, and the occasional Conservative Member of Parliament who exposes government misdeeds.

On Tuesday December 2nd the letters page of the WSJ gave prominence to letters from homosexuals who were critical of a previous Op-Ed piece that had suggested that ‘Gays’ be patient about the same-sex marriage issue. “Gays Are Fighting the Tyranny of the Majority” screamed the headline. Mr. Larry Roth of Kansas City in a long letter stated “The push for gay marriage is about economic equality. No one is interested in forcing churches that do not want to marry people of the same gender to do so, but gay people do expect their taxpayer-supported institutions not to pick one government-approved lifestyle and heap benefits on those who adopt that lifestyle at the expense of those who do not”. I’ll pass over the implications here that heterosexual marriage is merely a ‘government–approved lifestyle’ or that government heaps benefits on those who bear and nurture the next generation, though I am interested in the implication that both heterosexuals and homosexuals ‘adopt’ a lifestyle, for I understood the practice of sodomy to be something that afflicted people from birth. However I have to respond to Mr. Roth’s letter with ‘Who are you kidding?’ when he says that the push is all about economic equality. I wish it were so for we could then work out some form of financial justice and put the culture war to bed. Experience tells us that the homosexual activists who man the front lines of the culture war and infest the Media are absolutely determined to force Churches, schools, Boy Scouts and every other institution to bless their adopted lifestyle or be criminalized if reluctant to do so. I am sure Mr. Barrowman, George O’Dowd and all the rest will not rest until we and our sons are all handcuffed, bent on all fours, acknowledging the pleasures of the anus, the attractions of faeces and much more that I cannot yet imagine. One thing those of us who remember the early arguments for decriminalizing homosexuality have learned is that there will be no limit to future demands. I will give Mr. Roth the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is perched naively on the fringe of the battle of the great culture war.

Finally, a few words on the Obama/Clinton relationship! Some argue that Obama prefers to have the Clintons inside the tent p—ssing out. Others argue that he is now a prisoner of their future intrigues. I prefer to bring the Media Class into this analysis. The Clintons are very aware that they were abandoned by the Media Class and that Obama was selected and anointed in Mrs. Clinton’s place. Obama is also aware that he is the Media’s man. They all know that the Clintons now only have a future if they do what the Media Class appointee tells them. Mrs. Clinton, burdened by a multi-million dollar debt is grateful for the crumbs of office. She will probably dance to any Obama tune that is played and if she gets uppity, she will swing whilst the Media plays the death march. Only on this website do you get the real insights for all such matters must be viewed against the background of a ruling Media Class and its cultural revolution.

What's Your Opinion?