Andrew Breitbart was right about the culture

My daughter went to our local library this weekend and brought home a bunch of the library’s recent acquisitions for teens.  The inside jacket blurb describes them as fantasy or high school relationship books.  My daughter said to me, “I don’t know why it is, Mom, but they all turn out to be about lesbians.”  Since she’s neither L or G or B or T or Q, I’m not concerned that these books will “turn” her.  Certainly, though, they’re creating an intellectual dynamic that tells teenage girls where to look for real romance.

I had that in mind when I looked at the New York Times’ movie review page today.  I don’t read reviews anymore, and I never go to movies, and I seldom watch movies, but I occasionally glance at the review page to see what’s going on.  I was much struck by the page’s content:

1 2 3 4 5

One gets the feeling that filmmakers and the New York Times are advancing an agenda.

Andrew Breitbart was right that, because of media’s far reach, culture and politics flow downhill from it, with downhill being the operative word.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    The anthropologist Marvin Harris theorized that one of the signs of a civilization that has given up on itself is when it stops reproducing. When non-procreative sex becomes the main goal and preoccupation of a society, outlier sexual expressions like homosexuality tend to become more prominent and more acceptable. 
    One of the main advantages of the normalization of homosexual practices is that it lets heterosexuals off the hook regarding their own proclivities. If promiscuity and anal sex are more acceptable in the homosexual community, and heterosexuals rally to defend gays’ “right” to engage in such forms of expression, it enables straights to help themselves shamelessly from the same sexual candy jar.
    What’s ironic is that a majority of the hacks who work for the NYT probably are straights who are married or in long-term relationships. So there’s a bit of voyeurism involved in their advocacy of sodomy and sleeping around. Provided you wrap them up in a pretty leftist trope, such as the search for Authentic Self, I suppose you can hide your own obsession with them under a veneer of concerned, progressive humanism.

  • jj

    Blame Ernest Hemingway.  He made them interesting and even a bit exotic, rather than just sort of sad.

  • lee

    I know a wig-wearing Orthodox woman who worked for eons for the NYT, and remains a NYT fan. I never ceased to be amazed by the fact that the cognitive dissonance doesn’t make her head explode. When I knew her, she was a twenty-something observant girl, wishing for a YU grad, and a nice career. And she did marry a nice Jewish YU grad! But I am less than impressed by the NYT on her resume…. (Though she does seem to have a nice career, and two cute kids.)
    I think she has been so mired in the Upper West Side / New York Times world that she thinks that is the way things SHOULD be. I have some hope for her, because she really is, deep down, a nice real Orthodox Jewish girl.

  • Ymarsakar
    Remember to poke the Left’s evil in the eye every once in awhile.
    Don’t forget that if the Tea Party fails and all this “voter election” shenanigans go up in a fire, there will be one thing that has always destroyed evil: death and war.

  • Ruth H

    It makes one wonder how such a “taboo” subject is so often touted.

  • Ymarsakar

    Lee, Orthodox Jews are in a death cult alliance with the Left. Check out prisoner exchange politics in Israel.
    It’s to be expected that BOTH the secular Jews in the US and the orthodox would be on the Demoncrat’s side.

  • Ymarsakar

    Book, if your daughter wishes for high school romance, have her look for Clannad on the movie, anime, or visual novel formats.
    I have yet to detect a single bit of Leftism in Japanese media that I personally consume. I suppose not many Leftists speak and write in Japanese.

  • Charles Martel

    Ymarsakar, I’m not so sure that Orthodox Jews find much in common with the left. They do not condone extra- or premarital sex, homosexual sex, abortion, secularism, feminism, or relativism, which are sacred cows in leftist thought. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    GLBTs cannot procreate so they must recruit. In order to recruit, they must first normalize their predilections. Now that the movement to normalize “gay marriage” appears to have been won, there is a very strong movement to normalize pedophilia and polyamory. I know that this is anecdotal, but virtually every GLBT person that I have known well (including family members) was the victim of sexual or psychological abuse as a child.
    I was recently doing some research into demonology (for my Sunday School class, of all things) and learned that the practices of anti-Judeo Christian worship of Ba’al and Moloch (Set) was closely associated with homosexual orgies. Perhaps this is where we are headed as a society.
    Keep your children close. 

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, I have no doubt that the next step is to make licit polyamorous, polygamous, and incestuous marriages. The problem with the sanctioning of homosexual marriage is that it mimics the form of real marriage by at least involving two consenting adults, albeit of the same sex. The next permutations are less palatable, but just as justifiable now that our society has decreed that any affection between any two or more people is reason enough to tie a knot.

  • Mike Devx

    Well, I’ve seen a number of straight marriages that don’t seem to have much in common with loving and cherishing and honoring each other every day of their lives, “until death do us part”.   It’s more like, “until inconvenience do us part.”
    As a gay guy,if I ever were to find someone to deeply cherish and honor and love every day for the rest of my life – and vice versa – I would *like* to be able to be married.  My position has always been, leave it up to the people of an individual state, and if the people of that State vote it in by ***direct vote***, my position has been, I’m fine with it.
    But I must admit to being troubled.  Because:  when I look at every argument for *allowing* the people of a State to vote gay marriage in, I find that every one of those reasons is just as compelling for allowing polygamous marriage.  If the people of a state were, by ***direct vote***, to vote for allowing polygamous marroiages to becone legal, what would my objections be?  Every logical reason I could come up with for allowing that for gay marriage, it would allow it for polygamy as well.  I’m left only with, “But it’s just against American culture, dammit.  And if that’s my argument against allowing polygamous marriage, then it ought to be my argument against allowing gay marriage between two gay people, too.  Even under ***direct vote***.
    You could say, “But it’s three people (or four or five), and a marriage is only between two people.”  I don’t see much difference between that argument and the argument that a marriage must be between a man and a woman.  Either both arguments hold water with me, or neither.
    One part says, OK, if the people of a State vote that way, then so be it, legally-recognized polygamy, here we come.  That would be consistent with my belief that the people of a State should be allowed to vote for gay marriage within their State.  I’d be consistent!
    The other side of me rebels and says, absolutely not, even if the people of a State vote for it, it must not be allowed.  Then I should take the some position on gay marriage – and be consistent.
    Instead, I’m genuinely conflicted.  I guess I haven’t thought about this deeply enough.  I’m no different than that Congressman who came out in support of gay marriage only after he found out his son was gay.  That’s not a principled position; that’s nepotism.

  • Bookworm

    One of the things I deeply respect about you, Mike Devx, is your ability to look beyond your personal situation at larger issues.  I do believe that people should be able to choose their life partners.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should open doors that lead places no one wants to go.

    Everyone here knows that I espouse civil unions, which give gay and straight people the full benefits and burdens of whatever governments want to give to such unions.  If unions are for children, then they’ll all get child tax credits.  If unions are for following bliss, maybe no tax credits should be involved. 

    Religions can then make their own decisions about marriage, with liberal faiths allowing whatever the heck types of unions they want and traditional faiths clinging to the one man/one woman model.

    What worries me terribly is a clash between gay marriage advocates and traditional churches/synagogues/mosques that refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony.  Such clashes are already occurring in England, which has no First Amendment religious protection.

    As a parent, I also don’t like the culture drift.  I insist that my children treat all of their peers with respect, regardless of the sexual orientation given peers seem to manifest.  I think every human is entitled to respect unless his behavior says that he’s become something of an outlaw from humankind.  (I’m not going to give respect to Iran’s leaders, for example.  As for Obama, were I to meet him, I’d have to remind myself that, given the context, even if I don’t like the man, I probably should show respect for the office.)

    I do not want my children to be encouraged, though, to jettison their heterosexuality.  I believe there’s virtue in stable heterosexual relationships, both for the individuals and for society at large. 

    Mike is rather unique in seeing himself as a person and an American first, and a gay man second.  I’ve lived my life surrounded by gays (a result of growing up in SF), and one of the things that turned me from a self-described fag hag (always gay friends, never boyfriends), was that I got tired of people whose entire world view (their politics, fashions, friendships, foods, travels, etc.) was filtered through the lens of the sexual activity.  It wasn’t “I’m a gourmand, and I happen to be gay,” it was “Because I’m gay, of course I’m into gourmet food.”

  • Mike Devx

    Thank you for the kind words, Book.  My problem exists for civil unions, too:  Any *logical* argument allowing civil unions for two gay people, appears to allow it for polygamous civil unions as well.   Again, for me it still comes down to the question of whether it should be allowed only under *direct vote* of the people of a State.  It is not a civil rights issue to me, and should never be decided by a judge.
    I’m just as conflicted on civil unions for polygamists vs two gay people as I am conflicted on marriage.

  • Ron19

    Mike Devx:
    In light of all the issues you and Bookworm have brought up and not brought up, what is it that is available in a “just a piece of paper” traditional heterosexual marriage that would not be available nowadays in a civil union and a “few pieces of paper” to fill in the gaps?  I have friends and relatives with a variety of alternate lifestyles, but none of them have put as much thought into their situations and possibilities as you have.  There is nothing to discuss with them, because they have nothing to discuss.
    If and when you find the right life partner, what do you expect from a government for support of a non-traditional marriage?

  • Ron19

    …I probably should show respect for the office.
    The standard example, military salutes: you salute the rank, not the person.
    For example, my last supervisor in the military, newly promoted to Chief Master Sergeant, the highest enlisted rank in the U.S. Air Force, came back from lunch and mentioned that he had just saluted a Colonel that was walking the other away on the sidewalk.  The reason he mentioned it was because he had stopped the officer for not returning the salute.
    The respect for the rank goes two ways, because you are both in sworn military service to your nation.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Mike Devx, correct me if I am wrong, but I seemed to detect that you were tip-toeing around the real issue in the “marriage” debate, which is that it is all about children and the best way to nurture them in a society.
    It certainly isn’t or shouldn’t be about tax breaks. If tax breaks for living together is the issue, that can be addressed totally separately.

  • Ymarsakar

    Charles Martel, neither does the Left believe in Sharia. Political alliances aren’t made from mutual likes and cultural preferences.
    Israel’s political coalitions have been defacto alliances between Left wing pols and orthodox Jewish voters. Even up to and including affecting their foreign policy on prisoner exchanges.
    The Orthodox Jews consider life to be something that must be worked for. That includes getting back the intact bodies of their dead. In return for this political favor from Palestinians, Leftist politicians exchange hundreds of live terrorists for the bodies of a few Israeli dead. Not live hostages, but merely corpses. On the guarantee to the Israelis that this is worth it, these are intact bodies returned by the power of the Israeli state. The Palestinians, of course, lied about the corpses and were giving them a work over precisely because they hated Jews and knew their beliefs about intact burials being holy.
    If the Jewish political sphere was really split between a neat divide as Left and Right, policy would be dramatically different and they wouldn’t be stuck in a 50 years war having to sacrifice their kids so that Jewish politicians can make nice for their vote buying schemes. But this is the reality they are in. Those who can’t face the prospect of a religious Leftist alliance, should look real hard at what’s going on in Israel, especially their past.