Job One for Cultural Left: Horns on Loesch, Horns off Allen

Readability

Job One for Cultural Left: Horns on Loesch, Horns off Allen

Finally, if all else fails, you can per­suade him, in defi­ance of con­science, to con­tinue the new acquain­tance on the ground that he is, in some unspec­i­fied way, doing these peo­ple ‘good’ by the mere fact of drink­ing their cock­tails and laugh­ing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be ‘prig­gish’, ‘intol­er­ant’, and (of course) ‘Puritanical’.

C.S. Lewis The Screw­tape let­ters X

Sir Humphrey Apple­ton: All that the press and the peo­ple and their elected lead­ers want to know is who are the good­ies and who are the baddies.

Sir Richard Whar­ton: The prob­lem is that the inter­ests of Brit­tain nearly always involve doing deals with peo­ple that the pub­lic think are the baddies…

Sir Humphrey Apple­ton:…and not help­ing the good­ies occa­sion­ally when it doesn’t help us.

Yes Prime Min­is­ter: A Vic­tory for Democ­racy 1985

I was read­ing Roger Simon’s account of the debate between Din­ish D’Sousa & Bill Ayers in Dart­mouth when I saw this descrip­tion of Mr. Ayers

Back in the thir­ties, Stephen Vin­cent Benet wrote a famous story about Dartmouth’s most well known (with the pos­si­ble excep­tion of Dr. Seuss) grad­u­ate, Daniel Web­ster — The Devil and Daniel Web­ster. In that story, the devil is not por­trayed as a scary fig­ure in horns and a tail but as a more refined gen­tle­man, ”a soft-​spoken, dark-​dressed stranger,” who “drove up in a hand­some buggy.” That’s Bill Ayers these days.

It brought me to mind of one of the truths of the cul­ture wars that has not changed, how pop­u­lar cul­ture shapes the ICK factor.

Back in the 30’s and all the way to the early 60’s in the movies & TV of old, it used to be the black hats vs the white hats.

You knew who the good guys were because they wore the white hats and the black guys had the black hats and per­haps mus­taches. They let you know that it was good to marry the girl or hon­or­able to fight and that GOD was a fine thing. That fam­i­lies had to stick together, peo­ple had to be self reliant and respect for parental author­ity mattered.

It short they pro­moted the judeo-​christian cul­ture that served the coun­try so well.

While movies mak­ers will tell you this no longer hap­pens because they’ve “grown” or “matured” the actual fact is the movie and TV indus­try does exactly the same thing they did before on a reg­u­lar basis, but pro­mot­ing a dif­fer­ent set of val­ues more subtlety.

The idea is to cloak the cul­tural norms and mores that they wish to advance and those who prac­tice them in a pos­i­tive way, at best cre­at­ing an accep­tance of behav­ior that on its face would nor­mally be unac­cept­able or at least cre­ate enough moral ambi­gu­ity among oth­ers to keep them from object­ing too loudly. Can’t be judg­men­tal you know.

On the oppo­site end other behav­iors and social norms, par­tic­u­larly Chris­t­ian ones are to be sub­jected to ridicule and pro­mot­ers of such beliefs are invari­ably vil­lains. The goal is to estab­lish­ing any belief or behav­ior that resists the cul­tural changes that Hol­ly­wood wants as beyond the pale to the point where even them most triv­ial actions like say: speak­ing to a catholic group that pro­motes Catholic val­ues as some­thing not done by polite society.

That’s why in my mind the story of the attempt to Keep Dana Loesch off the View. and the open let­ter of Dylan Far­row are one and the same. In both cases you have strong women ready to pub­licly advance a posi­tion dia­met­ri­cally opposed to the elites who now run Hollywood.

Dana Loesch is well spo­ken, con­fi­dent and unafraid. The act of her mak­ing the pro-​2nd Amend­ment case to a group of low infor­ma­tion vot­ers who never hear a con­trary view is dan­ger­ous to the left, par­tic­u­larly as she is a per­son they might iden­tify with.

There is the real pos­si­bil­ity of her caus­ing some of those women to say to them­selves: “If this woman can say this and believe this and appear the view then maybe there’s noth­ing wrong with believ­ing the same.“

Even worse for the left Dana Loesch might actu­ally inspire the same courage she prac­tices in stand­ing up to these type in another. That for a group like media mat­ters would be too ter­ri­ble to con­tem­plate, thus the Horns must go on Dana Loesch’s head and must stay there.

On the other side Woody Allen who like Roman Every­one wants to f— young girls! Polan­ski is a dar­ling of the elites. It’s the rea­son why so many were will­ing to go over lines I thought they never would to defend him.

When he mar­ried his step­daugh­ter it was creepy enough but our celebrity cul­ture did not reject him. Instead they, as they do, excuses the most out­rages acts as almost com­i­cal the act of an eccen­tric fel­low and it com­bined with our fear of being con­sid­ered “puri­tan­i­cal” gave the pub­lic and the press leave to excuse and con­tinue to cel­e­brate Allen & those like him.

When, how­ever, Dylan Far­row wrote this piece which closes thus:

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Bald­win? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scar­lett Johans­son? You knew me when I was a lit­tle girl, Diane Keaton. Have you for­got­ten me?

Woody Allen is a liv­ing tes­ta­ment to the way our soci­ety fails the sur­vivors of sex­ual assault and abuse.

So imag­ine your seven-​year-​old daugh­ter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imag­ine she spends a life­time stricken with nau­sea at the men­tion of his name. Imag­ine a world that cel­e­brates her tormenter.

Are you imag­in­ing that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

…that’s a prob­lem. It’s one thing for Cory Feld­man to talk about Pedophiles in Hol­ly­wood with­out nam­ing names, it’s quite another for a young woman to declare that a Hol­ly­wood giant and high priest of the cul­tural left has been fight­ing his own war on woman since before they coined the term in the bible of the cul­tural left (the NYT). Sud­denly good fem­i­nists who would have no prob­lem reject­ing Allen if he was a Catholic priest or a repub­li­can pol are say­ing things like:

I hope they find res­o­lu­tion and piece.

Because to reject the Hol­ly­wood giant is to reject the cul­ture he thrives in.

Even worse if Ms Far­row is allowed to make such state­ments and be judged cred­i­ble, then what other silent voices might speak up? Might this dam­age the most effec­tive tools the cul­tural left has to advance their cause?

If the ICK fac­tor is to be moved in the direc­tion our cul­tural elites wish for it to be the horns must not be allowed to find them­selves affixed irrev­er­ently on the head of Woody Allen least they spread to oth­ers of his ilk in the eyes of the pub­lic. They are to be reserved for Dana Loesch, Sarah Palin or even Mike Huckabee

This is why I believe that the cul­ture wars need to be fought and as long as I have a voice in the great debate I intend to fight it.

Update: Allen denies and CT says it’s too late to press charges.

No big deal after all it’s not like he’s a Catholic priest or something

Update 2: Clar­i­fied that the bible of the cul­tural left is the NYT


[olimome­ter id=3]

It’s Mon­day and this week’s pay­check sits at $12.

This doesn’t bode well for my plans to add more writ­ers in the long term but in the short term it cer­tainly doesn’t do any good for pay­ing the mortgage.

13 tip jar hits as $25 will change all that, care to be one of them?

If so then Hit DaTip­Jar below.

Only 55 34 more sub­scribers @ at $20 a month are nec­es­sary to secure the cost of DaM­ag­nif­i­cent Seven & my monthly mort­gage on a per­ma­nent basis. If you think blogs like this will­ing to high­light the dou­ble stan­dard of the Democ­rats & media online & on radio are worth it, please con­sider sub­scrib­ing and sug­gest­ing a friend do so as well.



Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people ‘good’ by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be ‘priggish’, ‘intolerant’, and (of course) ‘Puritanical’.

C.S. Lewis The Screwtape letters X

Sir Humphrey Appleton: All that the press and the people and their elected leaders want to know is who are the goodies and who are the baddies.

Sir Richard Wharton: The problem is that the interests of Brittain nearly always involve doing deals with people that the public think are the baddies…

Sir Humphrey Appleton:…and not helping the goodies occasionally when it doesn’t help us.

Yes Prime Minister: A Victory for Democracy 1985

I was reading Roger Simon’s account of the debate between Dinish D’Sousa & Bill Ayers in Dartmouth when I saw this description of Mr. Ayers

Back in the thirties, Stephen Vincent Benet wrote a famous story about Dartmouth’s most well known (with the possible exception of Dr. Seuss) graduate, Daniel Webster — The Devil and Daniel Webster.  In that story, the devil is not portrayed as a scary figure in horns and a tail but as a more refined gentleman, ”a soft-spoken, dark-dressed stranger,” who “drove up in a handsome buggy.”   That’s Bill Ayers these days.

It brought me to mind of one of the truths of the culture wars that has not changed, how popular culture shapes the ICK factor.

Back in the 30’s and all the way to the early 60’s in the movies & TV of old, it used to be the black hats vs the white hats.

You knew who the good guys were because they wore the white hats and the black guys had the black hats and perhaps mustaches. They let you know that it was good to marry the girl or honorable to fight and that GOD was a fine thing. That families had to stick together, people had to be self reliant and respect for parental authority mattered.

It short they promoted the judeo-christian culture that served the country so well.

While movies makers will tell you this no longer happens because they’ve “grown” or “matured” the actual fact is the movie and TV industry does exactly the same thing they did before on a regular basis, but promoting a different set of values more subtlety.

The idea is to cloak the cultural norms and mores that they wish to advance and those who practice them in a positive way, at best creating an acceptance of behavior that on its face would normally be unacceptable or at least create enough moral ambiguity among others to keep them from objecting too loudly. Can’t be judgmental you know.

On the opposite end other behaviors and social norms, particularly Christian ones are to be subjected to ridicule and promoters of such beliefs are invariably villains. The goal is to establishing any belief or behavior that resists the cultural changes that Hollywood wants as beyond the pale to the point where even them most trivial actions like say: speaking to a catholic group that promotes Catholic values as something not done by polite society.

That’s why in my mind the story of the attempt to Keep Dana Loesch off the View. and the open letter of Dylan Farrow are one and the same.  In both cases you have strong women ready to publicly advance a position diametrically opposed to the elites who now run Hollywood.

Dana Loesch is well spoken, confident and unafraid.  The act of her making the pro-2nd Amendment case to a group of low information voters who never hear a contrary view is dangerous to the left,   particularly as she is a person they might identify with.

There is the real possibility of her causing some of those women to say to themselves: “If this woman can say this and believe this and appear the view then maybe there’s nothing wrong with believing the same.”

Even worse for the left Dana Loesch might actually inspire the same courage she practices in standing up to these type in another. That for a group like media matters would be too terrible to contemplate, thus the Horns must go on Dana Loesch’s head and must stay there.

On the other side Woody Allen who like Roman Everyone wants to f— young girls! Polanski is a darling of the elites. It’s the reason why so many were willing to go over lines I thought they never would to defend him.

When he married his stepdaughter it was creepy enough but our celebrity culture did not reject him. Instead they, as they do, excuses the most outrages acts as almost comical the act of an eccentric fellow and it combined with our fear of being considered “puritanical” gave the public and the press leave to excuse and continue to celebrate Allen & those like him.

When, however, Dylan Farrow wrote this piece which closes thus:

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

Are you imagining that? Now, what’s your favorite Woody Allen movie?

…that’s a problem.  It’s one thing for Cory Feldman to talk about Pedophiles in Hollywood without naming names, it’s quite another for a young woman to declare that a Hollywood giant and high priest of the cultural left has been fighting his own war on woman since before they coined the term  in the bible of the cultural left (the NYT).   Suddenly good feminists who would have no problem rejecting Allen if he was a Catholic priest or a republican pol are saying things like:

I hope they find resolution and piece.

Because to reject the Hollywood giant is to reject the culture he thrives in.

Even worse if Ms Farrow is allowed to make such statements and be judged credible, then what other silent voices might speak up?  Might this damage the most effective tools the cultural left has to advance their cause?

If the ICK factor is to be moved in the direction our cultural elites wish for it to be the horns must not be allowed to find themselves affixed irreverently on the head of Woody Allen least they spread to others of his ilk in the eyes of the public.  They are to be reserved for Dana Loesch, Sarah Palin or even Mike Huckabee

This is why I believe that the culture wars need to be fought and as long as I have a voice in the great debate I intend to fight it.

Update: Allen denies and CT says it’s too late to press charges.

No big deal after all it’s not like he’s a Catholic priest or something

Update 2:  Clarified that the bible of the cultural left is the NYT


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday and this week’s paycheck sits at $12.

This doesn’t bode well for my plans to add more writers in the long term but in the short term it certainly doesn’t do any good for paying the mortgage.

13 tip jar hits as $25 will change all that, care to be one of them?

If so then Hit DaTipJar below.

Only 55 3/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis. If you think blogs like this willing to highlight the double standard of the Democrats & media online & on radio are worth it, please consider subscribing and suggesting a friend do so as well.