Nobody likes to be watched while they’re trying to read a book, but we’re willing to make an exception if it means getting to visit this stunning new library in China, because as you can see below, the incredible structure has a giant spherical auditorium in the middle that looks just like a giant eye.
Located in the Binhai Cultural District In Tianjin, the five-story library, which was designed by Dutch design firm MVRDV in collaboration with the Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute (TUPDI) and has since been dubbed “The Eye of Binhai”, covers 34,000 square metres and can hold up to 1.2 million books. Taking just three years to complete, the library features a reading area on the ground floor, lounge areas in the middle sections and offices, meeting spaces, and computer/audio rooms at the top. We’re not sure how much studying we’d get done though – we’d be far too busy marveling at the awesome architecture!
If you walk into the film industry and start interviewing people like Eli Roth, you will almost certainly hear incredible and bizarre things. Roth would tell you that he aspires to “fu$k up an entire generation” through movies.
Roth and his brethren have been in the business for years, so they know the drill. Roth probably knows the story of Samson and Delilah. He probably knows that Samson’s lust darkened his mind and eventually sent him to his death.
Roth almost certainly knows that the best way to destroy the morals of his audience is to prey on their lust and appetite. That is why Roth’s brethren have spent years fighting against obscenity laws and pornography in the United States.
As Jewish scholar Nathan Abrams himself puts it,
“Older generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”
Abrams declared elsewhere that “Jewish involvement in porn” is actually “is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”
Another Jewish scholar by the name of Josh Lambert tells us that people like Larry David and Sarah Silverman “are challenging America’s powerful religious, family-friendly culture and asserting their Jewishness by glorifying obscenity.”
Yet David and Silverman are hardly the only people who are “glorifying obscenity” in Hollywood. David Cronenberg obviously beat them to the punch. Cronenberg got to the heart of the matter years ago by laying out his ideological weltanschauung in an interview with the Rolling Stone this way:
“Nothing is true. It’s not an absolute. It’s only a human construct, very definitely able to change and susceptible to change and rethinking. And you can then be free. Free to be unethical, immoral, out of society and agent for some other power, never belonging.
“Ultimately, if you are an existentialist and you don’t believe in God and the judgment after death, then you can do anything you want: You can kill, you can do whatever society considers the most taboo thing.”
Cronenberg’s moral calculus here is logically and philosophically incoherent. If “nothing is true,” then Cronenberg’s statement that “nothing is true” is not true. In order for the statement to make sense, Cronenberg has to assume that it is true! And if it is true, then the “nothing is true” is categorically false, which means that his entire argument collapses.
In short, Cronenberg is positing truth claims while denying truth exists! He is trapped in his own ideological matrix.
Living the incoherency of his system aside, Cronenberg is basically saying that you can only be free if you can come to the conclusion that nothing is true and that morality is, as philosopher Michael Ruse believes, “flimflam.” But because he is morally and intellectually blind, Cronenberg could not realize that his axiom is self-defeating.
Morality, as we all know, is inexorably linked to practical reason. It is also essential to esthetic truth and intellectual pursuit and honesty. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it,
“The intellectual life is a function of the moral life of the thinker. In order to apprehend truth, which is the goal of the intellectual life, one must live a moral life. One can produce intellectual product, but to the extent that one prescinds from living the moral life, that product will be more a function of internal desire—wish fulfilment, if you will—than external reality. This is true of any intellectual field and any deeply held desire.”
Truth, as Plato puts it, is like seeing things the way they really are. And practical reason (another word for morality) is one of the main tools for discovering metaphysical truth.
Yet since Cronenberg dismisses practical reason in his ideological calculus, there was no way for him to make a logical point without falling into his own trap. In the process, he has become a monster, as one scholar has argued.
The Rolling Stone interviewer asked, “Does the artist have any moral or social responsibility?” Cronenberg:
“No…Your responsibility is to be irresponsible. As soon as you talk about social or political responsibility, you’ve amputated the best limbs you’ve got as an artist. You are plugging into a very restrictive system that is going to push and pull and mold you and is going to make your art totally useless and ineffective.”
Cronenberg’s philosophy, scholar William Beard tells us, is “the disappearance of ethics.” It is actually “a world of unimpeded desires without consequences, where ‘everything is permitted.’ Metaphorically, this is the world of violent video games, of indulgent Hollywood movies, and also of the transgressive, boundary-piercing cinema of David Cronenberg.”
No responsibility, no morality, no ethical values, and no limit, nothing but ultimate meaninglessness and existential hell in movies. Existence itself, as indicated in Cronenberg’s movie eXistenZ, means corruption, moral degradation, and ultimately pathetic death. The axiom of eXistenZ is that “nothing is true; everything is permitted.”
“Every time I kill someone in my movie,” says Cronenberg, “I’m rehearsing my own death…It’s an existential truth, it’s very raw and real.” Didn’t Cronenberg state that nothing was true? Why is he now smuggling in truth in his philosophical trap?
Cronenberg, who has a “historic affinity with existentialism,” is also playing with the lives of his viewers. He admits that eXistenZ is filled with “existential propaganda.” Scholar William Beard comments:
“The disappearance of stable theoretical foundations for human society and human values, the stark realization of the insignificant position of humanity in a material cosmos, the undermining of all kinds of knowledge about the world and ourselves, leaves the existential human subject without clear guideline for living, with no certainty of anything but his or her own death…Culture, science, the whole edifice of modern European civilization are ineffectual in addressing the individual’s desperate plight.”
Once the existentialist denies metaphysical truth, he has to start creating his own “truth”: “From this we must create ourselves as meaningful beings, and create the world as meaningful for ourselves. From this we must build up the new foundations of our own lives, adding other people, culture, history, and politics tentatively and fragmentedly as necessary…”
Existentialists like Cronenberg, says Beard, “cut individuals off from the fundamental questions of personal existence, and leave them alienated in a world crowded with facts but void of meaning.” The philosophy of existentialism teaches Cronenberg that people “are all doomed to die and be swallowed up by Nothingness, but along the way we may carve out a niche or ledge on the cliff…”
Therefore “science” and technology are meaningful if they can advance sexual desires and appetite. It was no coincidence that Cronenberg has seized technology in the information age to advance his appetite to a wider audience. He bragged that “technology is with us,” meaning that he can use that kind of medium to get his essentially Freudian and therefore Talmudic ideas to unsuspecting viewers.
Put simply, Cronenberg is indirectly reinventing what Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values, which again states that morality is an illusion and that any culture which becomes docile to the moral order must be overthrown.
But in order to do that, Cronenberg has to go back to his revolutionary roots, which is neither Western nor rational but essentially Talmudic or Freudian: “I think we start off with what Freud called a polymorphous perverseness.”
One can easily argue that this “polymorphous perverseness” is at the core of virtually every Cronenberg film. In fact, Cronenberg admitted that characters in movies like Crash, M. Butterfly, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, and Sterero, were “reinventing sexuality,” which is another way of saying that Cronenberg’s characters were subverting the sexual order. Cronenberg’s existential philosophy, Beard says, is
“sexual or predatory, a drive, an appetite, that invokes Freud far more readily than the Sartre who heatedly rejected a Freudian view of life in which individuals were unfree prisoners of their psychic histories and hardwired desires.”
Cronenberg’s characters in eXistenZ, Beard continues,
“seem to reproduce that quasi-Freudian sense that their individual freedom—a sacrosanct item of the existentialist creed—is compromised by appetites that are so powerful they are strongly impelled to do something ethically ugly. This happens to Pikul in the Chinese restaurant. He finds he wants to kill the waiter, and is told by Geller that the impulse is part of his game character’s make-up and that he won’t be able to do anything to stop it.”
The interesting thing is that Cronenberg has successfully passed his essentially diabolical ideas to his son Brandon, who is now following the family tradition. That fact became quite obvious when David edited Brandon’s first feature film Antiviral, which the Rolling Stone itself has described as “sickening,” and which has the same “disturbing obsession with bodies and technology that animates his father’s films, from The Fly and Dead Ringers to Videodrome and Existenz.” The Rolling Stone reported,
“The son was infected with his father’s own sense of cerebral horror, and he is not rebelling against it. ‘I wrestled with it at first,’ he says, ‘but you get affected by how you grow up….’”
Cronenberg, whether he likes it or not, should be called a Satanist precisely because he is anti-Logos. But there is a bigger picture here. Cronenberg’s ideology has been transported to places like Japan as well. For example, one of Japan’s most controversial filmmakers is none other than Takashi Miike.
Miike says that he is a fervent admirer of directors like David Lynch (Lost Highway), Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct), and of course David Cronenberg. These people are what one should call cultural subverters. Verhoeven meant it when he said:
“As a director, my goal is to be completely open. Just look at how I portray sex in my films. They’re considered shocking and obscene because I like to carefully examine human sexuality. It has to be realistic.”
Verhoeven also declares that he has been “fascinated by the occult: black magic, UFOs, and kinetic energy. I also experimented with hypnotism, trying to get my friends to remember former lives.” It was a natural step for Verhoeven to move from an interest in the occult to bringing his viewpoint to life in films. Turning from the unknown and unknowable, Verhoeven replaced his own ideology with reality:
“My films became my anchor to reality, and I began to make extremely realistic movies. I felt compelled to show things as explicitly as possible—a tendency which many film critics have dismissed as banal.”
Verhoeven applied this tendency most often to the area of sexuality, explicitly portraying sex in movies like Showgirls, Basic Instinct, Turkish Delight, and The Fourth Man. Yet even in RoboCop, which in comparison has little sexuality, Verhoeven’s worldview is clear—this time he is substituting Logos incarnate with his own imagination:
“It’s pure resurrection. For me, RoboCop is a Cytale. First, Murphy is gunned down in the most horrific way: that is the Crucifixion. And it has to be so violent, because the audience has to remember him.
“Before that, he has not done anything in the film. He comes to the police station to put on his uniform, then he goes after the villains with his partner, and bang! he is dead. That shooting is the only thing about him—I did that deliberately.
“Next, the film makes a steep descent into the finite, after which he experiences his Resurrection, in a modern day…RoboCop is a Jesus figure—an American Jesus…Americans want to be humane, but if they think it takes too long, Christian morality is pushed aside for the moment and they go for their weapons—just like Robocop.”
Biographer Rob van Scheers writes,
“Both in his films and in his personal life, Paul Verhoeven has always practiced a free sexual morality of which he makes no secret…Verhoeven would add in the gay magazine The Advocate: ‘Sex is a form of play—doing what you did when you were four or five years old and were playing in the street with your friends. Once you are grown up, it is difficult to be playful, but one of the ways you can is with sex. It is a way of showing yourself: That’s how I’m made. This is what I like.”
In short, Verhoeven and Takashi Miike are on the same subversive boat. Both individuals want to overthrow the moral order. Eli Roth and Takashi Miike are also on the same boat, working to “fu$k an entire generation.” Of course, Roth himself admitted that he admires Miike’s work. In fact, Roth would have loved to make Ichi the Killer 2. Keep in mind that Ichi the Killer is one of Miike’s “most controversial films,” an “ultra-violent” film which portrays “sadomasochistic” scenes.
Miike admits in an interview with the BBC that he is a “feminist,” so it was inevitable that he would pull this ideology out of his film. “Miike has garnered international notoriety for depicting shocking scenes of extreme violence and sexual perversions…” Of course, this is exactly what Eli Roth and David Cronenberg have been doing for years.
What we are seeing here is that Hollywood stirred the subversive pot, and other nations such as Japan and South Korea followed suit. Even the new South Korean movie, Train to Busan, “borrows heavily from World War Z in its depiction of the fast-moving undead masses while also boasting an emotional core the Brad Pitt-starring extravaganza often lacked.”
If no social progress is possible outside the moral order, then Satanists in Hollywood are contributing to the demise of social docility and cultural harmony around the world. The solution?
A return to practical reason and metaphysical Logos, the essence of true creativity and beauty. Movies such as The Lord of the Rings were written under those premises. As Israel Shamir rightly points out, Logos is “the main fountain of creativity.” Shamir also argues that true visual art or poetry simply cannot exist outside of Logos.
If Satanists in Hollywood rejects “the main fountain of creativity,” then they can only produce degradation, ugliness, meaninglessness, despair, and ultimate chaos and confusion. It was only a matter of time before the art world was used as a weapon against Logos:
“A photograph of a crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ, was exhibited in the Whitney Museum, which is headed by a great friend of [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder.”
This is one reason why people like Carolee Scheemann use nothing but blatant sadistic/ sadomasochistic sexual imagery in their “art.”
 Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, February 3, 2014.
 David Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 It is almost the same thing with relativism. I have been listening to an interview E. Michael Jones did with Alex Fontana during which Fontana declared that he doesn’t know if he agrees with “objective reality.” He then lays out his position by saying, “I guess I am a relativist.” I was completely stunned because during the entire interview Fontana was basically dissecting some ideas in the culture and implicitly arguing that they were wrong! Fontana could not see that there is no way to adjudicate two fundamentally opposite ideas if relativism is true. I was also shocked because relativism has been abandoned by serious thinkers years ago precisely because it is devoid of coherency and rigor. This is why Jones told him that relativism “is incoherent. It makes no sense ultimately.” I have discussed the incoherency of relativism in numerous articles. An example can be found here.
 Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
 E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 15.
 Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
 See for example William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
 Breskin, “David Cronenberg: The Rolling Stone Interview,” Rolling Stone, February 6, 1992: 66-70.
 William Beard, The Artist as Monster: The Cinema of David Cronenberg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 434.
Professor In Criminology, Staffordshire University
Concern is mounting about a recent surge in violent knife crime in Britain’s biggest cities.
Crime figures for the 12 months to March 2017 showed an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. There has also been an increase in the use of bladed weapons in prison with 635 incidents recorded in 2016, up 29% on the previous year. There are almost two knife crimes a day in prison, a setting where security is supposed to be paramount.
The Guardian project, Beyond the Blade, has been mapping fatal teenage knife offences throughout 2017. Writing in April, the journalist Gary Younge laid part of the blame for the rise in knife violence on austerity which had led to cuts in youth services. Other commentators have put the blame elsewhere, from the rise of gangster rap to the decline in the use of police stop and search powers.
Gangs, grim estates and grime music are often given as the backdrop to a typical knife murder. Yet move outside of London, and that doesn’t seem to be the picture. And a spate of recent knife fatalities in the West Midlands suggest that the violence is not simply a gang issue. While some of the recent killings are gang related, many are not and it seems part of the problem is that knife and weapon-carrying has become increasingly normal for a significant number of young men. In the West Midlands, some of those involved in serious knife violence have had little contact with the criminal justice system before.
According to much criminological research, young men are often motivated to carry knives by anxiety and insecurity. Many are concerned about their own risk of being the victim. Respect and street kudos are also factors.
Social media can be a powerful platform for young people to craft identity, or to present themselves as tough and macho. I’ve seen platforms such as Snapchat and Instagram being used by prisoners to pose with knives and money. Pictures are posted momentarily and taken down instantly leaving little trace. To their peers, this re-enforces the idea that owning and carrying weapons is normal – and therefore sparks others to do so.
During my own research, I have interviewed many violent young men in custody who have been both the instigators and victims of serious violence. Frequently, this includes being stabbed. One thing that strikes me is how many of these young men see nothing exceptional in carrying and using weapons, viewing it almost as logical.
Offenders tell me that carrying knives is frequently about “self-protection”. One told me: “You never know who else will have one, but most people do now.” Another said: “If someone is going to stab me, I will stab them first.” As another man succinctly put it: “Nobody is bigger and harder than a blade.”
Such words tend to reflect an abdication of personal responsibility, a point made by the former prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple in his recent book The Knife Went In. Dalrymple sees weapon-carrying as a symptom of moral decline, also making the point that murderers do not take personal responsibility for their actions.
Yet young men’s self-justifications for carrying weapons arguably mirror the dominant contemporary political and economic logic of our time. Consumer society tells them to indulge now and feel no guilt – to enjoy themselves and put their own interests ahead of obligations to others. At the same time, the importance of self-reliance, a political mantra shared by the Conservatives and New Labour, has trickled down to young people from on high – even when the money didn’t.
We should not be shocked that many young men have now internalised this selfish individualism.
On the outside
Men from cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester live within a stone’s throw of central city spaces that hold little real attachment for them. Most cannot afford to shop in the expensive designer stores and frequent the expensive, high-end bars that proliferate there. Many do not want employment in a sports shop on a zero hours’ contract or to be part of a service sector that will barely pay them enough to make ends meet.
Precarious, insecure work in the gig economy means that for many it is better to dabble in the entrepreneurial and sometimes violent world of petty crime – such as cannabis cultivation, arguably one of the few homegrown industries Britain has left. My own research also suggests that similar drug markets involving synthetic cannabis are starting to emerge and become well established in prisons. The only drawback is that disputes in such concealed, unregulated spaces tend to get resolved by violence.
Whether it is inside the walls of the prison or on the outside in the hollowed out communities of England’s inner city estates, there is no one single cause driving men to stab one another. Knife carrying isn’t all gang-related, but young men’s increasing reliance upon knives and weapons is not just a media scare either – and it provides a grim glimpse into the fragile state of young male mentality.
Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment scandal isn’t only an indictment of his twisted soul, but of America’s as well.
The story of Weinstein, the uber-powerful film producer, co-founder of Miramax Films and major donor to Democratic politicians, who got fired from his job as co-Chairman of The Weinstein Company after the New York Times ran an article exposing his serial sexual harassment of female employees, is such a perfect storm of corruption, depravity and hypocrisy that it exquisitely encapsulates the moral decay of America.
The New York Times piece revealed that Weinstein has settled at least eight different sexual harassment lawsuits over the years. The article was just the tip of a really grotesque iceberg, for in its wake a plethora of other claims has surfaced.
In a New Yorkerarticle, written, ironically enough, by Ronan Farrow, son of alleged pedophile Woody Allen, even more claims emerged of Weinstein’s predatory behavior. One of the many lowlights from that article includes Italian actress/filmmaker Asia Argento and two other women claiming that Weinstein raped them.
The most famous women among the sea of those claiming harassment at the hands of the movie mogul are Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Rose McGowan and Rosanna Arquette.
The odiousness of this Weinstein scandal is overwhelming, and nearly every public person is going through the Kabuki theater of denouncing Harvey and his lecherousness, but this strikes me as disingenuous at best. All the movie stars, media members, and politicians strongly reprimanding Weinstein now, displayed nothing but egregious cowardice during Harvey Weinstein’s grotesque reign of wanton terror.
Many Hollywood heavyweights like Meryl Streep, George Clooney, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lawrence, are feigning ignorance of Weinstein’s disgusting depravity, but the revelation of Weinstein’s repulsive misdeeds cannot possibly come as a surprise. Harvey, the rotund and repugnant Hollywood kingmaker, is notorious in the film industry for his petulant and imperious approach, which includes physically abusing underlings and being a lascivious beast to women. Tales of Weinstein’s bad behavior are so legion that even a complete nobody like me has heard them ad infinitum.
So how did Harvey get away with being such a gigantic creep for so long? The main reason is that he possessed the rarest talent that all of Hollywood covets, the ability to garner Oscar votes for his films. Weinstein produced films have been nominated for Best Picture 26 times in the last 28 years and have been nominated overall for over 300 Academy Awards. In other words, Harvey could make people rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams, which is why so many in Hollywood checked their humanity and ethics at the door and looked the other way when he was being such a troglodyte. To quote Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Blind ambition isn’t the only reason Hollywood looked the other way regarding Weinstein, political expediency played a part as well. Weinstein has been a long time supporter of Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in particular, and has donated a lot of money to their campaigns.
A perfect example of someone making a devil’s bargain with Weinstein for political reasons is Lena Dunham. Dunham, a vociferous and vocal Clinton supporter and devout feminist, admitted she knew of Weinstein’s predatory reputation in regards to women, but still shook his hand and performed at a fundraiser he held for Clinton’s campaign. Dunham said she betrayed her feminist values because “she so desperately wanted to support Clinton.”
Hollywood liberals were quick to denounce Evangelical Christians for supporting Trump despite his moral turpitude and misogyny, calling them hypocrites. I agree that Evangelicals are hypocrites for supporting Trump, but so are Hollywood liberals for enabling Weinstein. Both sides need to get off their high horse and read Matthew 7:5, “You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Speaking of enabling, the Weinstein scandal brought to my mind a line from a U2 song, “if you need someone to blame, throw a rock in the air, you’ll hit someone guilty.” When I throw my rock, it often lands on the media, and so it is with this case.
Ronan Farrow published his Weinstein story in the New Yorker magazine, but only because his employer NBC news refused to go with the story. NBC is in business with Weinstein on various film and television projects, and no doubt did not want to ruffle the feathers of such a powerful and litigious man like Harvey Weinstein, so they passed on it, which means this story says just as much about them as it does about Weinstein.
Even the New York Times, which broke the Weinstein story, came out smelling less like a rose and more like a manure pile after it became known the newspaper spiked a similar story regarding Weinstein in 2004 after being pressured by the producer and his lawyers to do so.
The New York Times dropping the ball on an important story in the early 2000’s should come as no surprise to anyone who followed the lead up to the Iraq War or Bush surveillance, but what was shocking was who helped to scuttle the 2004 Weinstein article. Matt Damon, yes, Matt Damon, Mr. Good Will Hunting, and thought-to-be good guy called the Times reporter to defend and vouch for Weinstein to stop the story. So did everyone’s favorite Gladiator Russell Crowe. I wonder how Damon and Crowe sleep at night knowing they were complicit in thirteen more years of Weinstein’s abusing women?
It is uncomfortable to acknowledge, but another group of people who could have stopped Harvey Weinstein but did not were the more famous of his victims, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd. These women did not ask to be placed in this terrible position, but they could have stopped him cold if they came forward years ago. The reason I sight them and not the other victims is because they were uniquely positioned to be able to defend themselves and to take on Harvey Weinstein, where the other victims were not. What I mean by that is that Paltrow, Jolie, Sorvino, and Judd all come from entertainment families that are well-known and liked in the industry. They were not powerless because they have strong allies and deep connections in the business. These women, sans Judd, also won Oscars, giving them, even more, credibility and visibility to make their claims. I do not “blame” these women for being harassed or assaulted by Weinstein, I only wish they overcame their ambition and saved others from that awful fate.
The cavalcade of condemnation for Weinstein will continue unabated for the days and weeks to come, and deservedly so, but to see him only as a target of derision diminishes his impact as a cautionary tale. Weinstein is simply a symptom of the wider disease which I call “reality show America,” which sees human beings as disposable and transactional objects whose value is measured in terms of their usefulness for entertainment or pleasure.
The true power of the Weinstein story is not about his personal failings, but that it is symbolic of the fact that “reality-show America”, which thrives across the political and cultural spectrum, is a collection of self-serving, amoral, hypocrites who are quick to attack the failings of their enemy but slow to embrace self-reflection.
Will the denizens of “reality-show America” in Hollywood, Washington and the news media ask themselves how they have contributed to the culture that bred a man like Harvey Weinstein? I sincerely doubt it since deflection, emotional myopia and historical amnesia are as American as apple pie.
This scandal is an opportunity, not only to see Weinstein for who he really is but also to see America for what we have become…an ethically bankrupt and indecent collection of moral cowards allergic to self-reflection and truth.
This “reality-show America”, currently starring the Trumps and Kardashians (with special guest appearance by the Clintons!) and produced by Harvey Weinstein, reveals that America has devolved to the point of shameless obscenity, and regardless of how self-righteous we as liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans may feel, we no longer possess any moral authority because, just like Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood, Washington and Wall Street, we are incapable of being honest with ourselves.
It is difficult to admit, but if we mustered the courage to see ourselves as we truly are, we would recognize that Harvey Weinstein is America, and America is Harvey Weinstein. Both are bloated, entitled, corrupt, bombastic, blindly ambitious bullies, full of fear and loathing, that use their outsized power to exploit the defenseless to indulge their darker impulses and insatiable desires. The sooner we recognize that, the faster we can try to change it.
Michael McCaffrey, for RT
Michael McCaffrey is a freelance writer, film critic and cultural commentator. He currently resides in Los Angeles where he runs his acting coaching and media consulting business. mpmacting.com/blog/
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ladies and Gentlemen, say hello to Dmitry Kiselyov, Russia’s #1 news anchor, and simultaneously, the head of one of the biggest government media conglomerates, Rossiya Segodnya, which owns, among other things, RT.
He has been roundly demonized by the western media, and put on the sanctions list, a strong hint that he probably talks a lot of good sense and is worth listening to.
Kiselyov is an excellent wordsmith, and his carefully crafted video essays pack a punch. This time he’s found an excellent translator to convey a hint at his style. Some choice chops:
I can’t say that we are always happy with our turbulent history, but at least unlike America, Poland or Ukraine, we don’t destroy monuments and don’t ban films.
Otherwise, we would have to stop showing, for example, “And Quiet Flows the Don” or “Battleship Potemkin,” to ban the “The White Guard” or “Lenin in October.” Then, we would begin to destroy the monuments.
And then, we would get indignant because Chekhov romanticizes the old landlord life in the play “Three Sisters.” And then we would ask if we needed Chekhov at all?
And did you know? Pushkin was a landowner himself. He received 200 servants as a wedding gift from his father. Is it possible to give living people as a gift? And hundreds of them at that?
And what should we do with Pushkin now?
For starters, the intellectual fare served to the broad masses in Russia is substantially higher than in the US.
Well worth listening to his take on the PC plague gripping America: (video and full text follows below)
Last week, stunning news came out of America even though to the unobservant eye, what happened could seem trifling at first glance.
At the Orpheum Theater in Memphis, Tennessee, it was officially announced that from now on the movie “Gone with the Wind” would be banned. Although until now, the same Orpheum Theater in Memphis has traditionally shown “Gone with the Wind” in August during the Film Classics days…for 34 years in a row. There won’t be a 35th season.
What happened, in my opinion, is a national catastrophe for America.
I’ll try to explain why. To assess the scale of the disaster, it’s worth recalling something that everyone knows. The great movie of the great director Fleming, “Gone with the Wind,” which premiered in 1939, is the most popular film in the US in the history of American cinema. It’s the absolute champion in tickets sales. Taking into account inflation, nearly $3.5 billion was collected. Modern-day Hollywood blockbusters can’t even get close to that kind of runaway success.
Vivien Leigh was cast in the lead role, an English actress, she was selected out of 1,500 candidates. “Gone with the Wind” immediately brought her world fame. Vivien Leigh is also remembered as an all-time symbol of British cinema. However, she received her first Oscar for the American movie “Gone with the Wind.”
Them damned Yankee, SPLC lovin’, boney-ass globalists up to their monkeyshines again darlin’
In total, this film has received 10 Oscar awards. One of them was given to a black actor for the first time in history. The highest award of the American Film Academy for the Best Supporting Actress was given to Hattie McDaniel, who played the maid, Mammy, in “Gone with the Wind. Now, the film is accused of racism, an insult to the black population of America, and the romanticization of the South during the slavery period.
The love story of this film is told against the background of the Civil War between the South and the North in the 19th century. And, they say, the movie is painful for a portion of America’s modern day population.
The representative for the distribution company states the following: “As an organization whose stated mission is to entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves, the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of the local population.”
In order to understand the context, I should add that the Negroes – this word is fine in Russian – are about two-thirds of the population of Memphis. It’s them who are offended by the classics of American cinema. However, banning one film in only one city is only a part of a general process, which was kicked into high gear during the Obama presidency.
Racial tensions are at an all-time high in the United States. It was during Obama’s presidency that the first monument in a larger campaign to remove monuments to White heroes was taken down, the statue of the hero of the South, General Lee, in New Orleans. The decision was finally executed last May during Trump’s administration. But this was only done by labeling the General Lee monument a symbol of the superiority of the White race or, to translate it into PC-speak, a symbol to “White Supremacy.”
However, it is impossible to speak today in the United States about the atrocities of the northerners, in particular, about the “scorched earth” tactics of General Sherman during the American Civil War. Meanwhile, in New Orleans, the monument to the president of the Southern Confederation, Jefferson Davis, has already fallen, followed by a monument to the fighters for the freedom of the South.
Another general for the South, Pierre de Beauregard, was taken down as well. Later, the monument to General Lee was slated for demolishing in Charlottesville. This is similar to the mass toppling of Lenin statues, only done in the American way and it quickly spread to Baltimore. There, they brought down the monuments to four generals of the Confederation and other figures of the South of the Civil War period. A monument to the soldiers of the South was removed in North Carolina.
The fervor is so contagious that desecration operations are now planned for monuments all over the US. Moreover, not only memorials and monuments to the Southerners will be removed, of which there are more than 1,500 in the country, but their names will also be erased from the names of streets, schools, and public institutions.
With a red-hot iron against history.
The cinema’s turn has now come. Now, the brilliant movie “Gone with the Wind” runs the risk of disappearing from all American screens. The Memphis precedent will work. And they will certainly never ever show one of the first US full-length films, “The Birth of a Nation,” directed by David Griffith, who, by the way, is considered the father of American cinema.
It was he who laid the foundations for sensible editing and even special effects. “Birth of a Nation.” 1915. Three hours. The historical period the movie was set in was the Civil War in the US and the events immediately after.
The film had unprecedented battle scenes for cinema of that time. The drama lay in a gripping account of a fratricidal war and the drama of the defeated where “the White South was crushed by the Black heel of the North.” Without regard to rules of war and decency. The North unleashed Black brutality on the Southern Whites in the name of revenge for the past.
How can this film be shown now, especially since the birth of the awful Ku Klux Klan is also realistically depicted in the movie as well? It emerged as a necessary organization for the self-defense of Whites. And, the cavalry charges while “Ride of the Valkyries” by Wagner is playing as the score. All of this is unacceptable now, so this picture will be permanently banned from American cinemas. All of this even though the US President, Woodrow Wilson, who was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, but who was also considered an authoritative historian, called the film “Birth of a Nation” a “terrible truth.”
President Wilson made this statement right after he organized a review of Griffith’s new movie in the White House, where he invited both his ministers and foreign ambassadors.
Surprisingly, it turns out that a hundred years ago America coped with its past and was ready to comprehend it and accept it as it is. Now, this ability has been lost, and a war has been declared on the past. And so far it proceeds in a very primitive fashion, through the destruction of monuments and censorship. And no one knows where it will stop.
Why not then take a new look at the American Westerns? Are they next on the chopping block? There are many films where the Indians are depicted as stupid and bloodthirsty, and they are killed by the White man in great numbers.
It seems that the fight against the Westerns hasn’t started just yet. But monuments to Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of America, are already being defiled all over the US. They say that he is to blame for initiating the genocide of the indigenous population of the country. Last Wednesday, in the State of New York, a statue of Columbus was knocked down from the pedestal, and then smashed to pieces.
There are new heroes in America now. American cinema does its best to create a new cast of heroes, infused with modern sensibility. The last Oscar for Best Picture is characteristic of a larger trend. The film “Moonlight”, has the main character be the son of a drug-addicted mother, a gay Black man, a brutal gangster with gold teeth. But look at his wounded soul, and his difficult childhood. It’s now beyond “Gone with the Wind.”
This is also an example of how America can’t cope with the real history of its own country. The conflicts of the past, the wounds of which they never managed to heal, have reopened. History seems to be coming to life and creating serious tension.
We lived through something similar in our Soviet experience, when all of society was ideologically balkanized and forced to take up the position of one of the parties in the conflicts of the past. We all supported the red and not the bourgeoisie. We were for the rebels of Pugachev and StepanRazin. We were against the landlords. We were for the insurgent officers, the Decembrists, and not for the Tsar. We were for the Narodnik terrorists and not for the tsarist police.
And we were all as one against those enemies as if they were still alive today.
The same thing is happening in the US now. The Confederates of a century and a half ago are turned into the living enemies of today. And, the relationship between the Negroes and the Whites in those days can’t be shown as it really was back then.
Political correctness is the instrument of American censorship. Under its banner, they forbid films and demolish monuments. Under its banner, you can destroy White history to your heart’s content.
In Russia, we are already so fed up with all that nonsense and thank God, we can now quietly write, publish, read, film and show our history. We can allow ourselves to look at events from different sides. I can’t say that we are always happy with our turbulent history, but at least unlike America, Poland or Ukraine, we don’t destroy monuments and don’t ban films. Otherwise, we would have to stop showing, for example, “And Quiet Flows the Don” or “Battleship Potemkin,” to ban the “The White Guard” or “Lenin in October.” Then, we would begin to destroy the monuments.
And then, we would get indignant because Chekhov romanticizes the old landlord life in the play “Three Sisters.” And then we would ask if we needed Chekhov at all? And did you know? Pushkin was a landowner himself. He received 200 servants as a wedding gift from his father. Is it possible to give living people as a gift? And hundreds of them at that? And what should we do with Pushkin now?
But this would mean applying today’s norms to the past. We have already spilt so much blood over the past, that we don’t want to reopen those wounds again. We want to heal our past divisions, to learn and accept everything as it was, and to learn from the experience. We don’t want new civil conflicts.
Meanwhile, America still has the energy to reopen old wounds and stoke the flames of resentment. Political Correctness only worked as a band-aid it seems, it masked the old tensions under a superficial layer of civility, meanwhile the old racial hostility and enmity smoldered in the deep like a simmering, submerged peat fire.
Now, the tongues of flame are already peeping out of the ground, licking the turf on top. And the scale of the fire when it finally breaks out is difficult to predict.
When a society is split, when politics are saturated with hatred, and the rule of law no longer exists, what will hold keep the whole thing from collapsing?
It’s not news that tattoos are hitting the mainstream, but a new study reported in the journal Scientific Reports reveals that tattoo inks’ nanoparticles are adding color to other parts of your body.
As the tattooed population knows all too well, the process of tattooing consists of placing insoluble deposits of pigmented ink just below the epidermis, or outermost layer of skin. As they also know, your body does pretty much anything it can to get that ink out – which is why new tattoos excrete ink, plasma, and lymphatic fluid through the epidermis while healing.
But what ink is left in the body gets additionally filtered through the lymphatic system. The ink-lymph mixture is carried through the lymph nodes, whose job it is to process and filter harmful substances from the body.
None of this is really news – tattooed individuals have displayed pigmented lymph nodes for decades.
But what is it, exactly, that the lymph nodes are filtering out?
Working out the Inks
There are a wide variety of tattoo ink formulas, with a big variance in composition based on the ink’s color. Black tattoos are frequently made of iron oxides and carbon, while colored inks can contain nickel, chromium, manganese or cobalt.
From the study: An example of green ink particles that leached into a lymph node.
According to the study, the two most common ink ingredients are carbon black and titanium dioxide, the latter as a white shade commonly used for mixing.
And just how big are the particles in those compounds? On average, particles range in size from as large as 100 nanometers to as small as 1 micrometer
To discover what particles end up in the lymph nodes of tattooed individuals, researchers focused on the nodes of four tattooed cadavers and one non-tattooed control. The study revealed tattoo particle pigmentation in two out of the four tattooed donors – specifically, blue and green pigments.
Think Before You Ink
The study found that it was the smaller nanoparticles of ink that were transported to the lymph nodes, but researchers couldn’t establish a size limit that would prevent the ink’s transport. Researchers also showed that ink deposits in them results in a chronic enlargement of the exposed nodes.
Now that the presence of these nano-scale metals and oxides in the lymph nodes of tattooed individuals is proven, figuring out exactly what that means is the next step.
Maybe next time you head to the tattoo parlor for a zap, ask your artist whether their tattoo ink contains macro- or nano-scale oxide particles-or maybe not.
There is an open secret in the entertainment industry. In order to rise to the highest levels of pop music stardom you must completely give yourself over to an establishment that has long been perfecting the art of mind control through dark imagery and occult symbolism.
Why is the one-eyed thing so popular in pop culture?
The subconscious mind absorbs meaning and takes direction from images and symbols in imagery, often sensing that which the conscious mind overlooks or filters out. This is well-known as a fundamental aspect of human spirituality, and visualization has long been the essential
When you see such powerful imagery presented in a carefree medium like a music video, it’s critical to understand that the images flashing in rapid fire on the screen are working a kind of magic over the mind of the viewer. It’s subliminal programming, although in today’s pop-art culture, it’s hardly subliminal, but so few people know this when consuming media.
Mega pop star Taylor Swift is at the very top of the industry, and getting paid like royalty for her commitment to the pop game. “With tour revenue, album sales, and dollars earned via streaming, her paycheck comes to…drumroll…a cool $73,500,000. The figure landed her in the #1 spot on Billboard‘s list of highest paid musicians of 2015,” writes Glamour Magazine.
Swift is undoubtedly talented as a singer, songwriter and performer, yet as her career has gone supernova, so apparently has her commitment to the Illuminati message. The video for her most recent hit single, Look What You Made Me Do, is a masterpiece of occult mind-control symbolism, and the plot centers around the transformation of Swift’s old self into a high priestess of mind control. Perhaps even eclipsing Katy Perry’s, Chained to the Rythym.
“The video symbolically describes what happens to stars who get caught up in the higher levels of the occult entertainment industry. Although they are insanely successful, they also become slaves to the industry, with no life of their own. Their sound, image, and even their personality are shaped at will by those behind the scenes.
The video doesn’t only portray Swift as a slave of the industry, it also announces that she has paradoxically “ascended” to the status of Grand Priestess. Sounds ridiculous? Maybe it would be ridiculous … if the video wasn’t so blatant about it.” ~Vigilant Citizen
The video begins with a dead, zombie Swift emerging from the grave, who is then reborn again in her new image of lavish and outrageous wealth.
The old Taylor Swift is dead, awaiting rebirth as the queen of the damned.
Here she is reborn into the inner circle of ridiculous wealth and narcissistic treasures.
And finally Swift has ascended to the level of a dark queen, the new High Priestess of pop culture. In this scene, she is re-enacting a Tarot card in an ode to the mystery schools which inspire the occult.
In general, though, the themes in this video are repeated ad nauseam in the upper echelon of mainstream pop music, serving as messages to the masses of what it takes to play this game at this level. One must transform themselves into servant of dark influences by submitting to Monarch mind control and Beta Kitten programming, such as Ariana Grande who is an up and coming beta kitten.
“The main goal of Monarch is to program slaves to have multiple personas that can be triggered at will. Beta Programming (aka Sex Kitten programming) is used to create sex slaves to be trafficked in the shady elite underworld.
Newsflash: The entertainment industry is full of Beta Kittens. Newsflash: The elite brags about this in mass media using the likes of Taylor Swift.” ~Vigilant Citizen
The video is directed by Joseph Kahn who’s well-known for his work with Britney Spears, the quintessential modern example of Monarch and Beta Kitten mind control programming. Groomed as a pop star from her days as a Mouseketeer, Spears’ career saw her rise to unbelievable height, becoming an outrageous sex symbol, then crashing in a mental breakdown only to be tossed aside and replaced with a new generation of young female stars.
This aspect is demonstrated in the following scenes where the imagery of sexy kittens appears both in the background as well as in the forefront in order for young minds to make the association between stardom and sexual kitten, implanting these desires deep within the subconscious of young viewers.
Swift in leopard skin print with a strange cat friend in the passenger seat.
In a kitten mask with money strewn about the room.
Swift’s young audience is being instructed to be obedient to the ideals of the beta sex kitten.
All old versions of Swift are killed off as she takes her place at the top.
Old versions of Taylor Swift are subjugated to make way for the new Illuminati queen.
The social goal of media such as this is to forward the degeneration of the youth, encouraging them to become mindless followers of pop culture and nothing more than sexual objects. This can be seen in a frame from Swift’s video, where a room full of robotic sex-bots are lined up, ready to serve.
The endgame: a society of over-sexualized robotic, group-thinking slaves.
In the end, Swift is enslaved to the game and while she enjoys uncanny riches, she is nothing more than a prisoner, locked in the symbolic bird cage while her handlers look on.
In the bird cage having sacrificed her freedom and virtue for wealth and fame.
The art of occult themed pop-star music videos is reaching its pinnacle, and as the symbolic messages are fine-tuned to near perfection, most people still don’t even realize what they’re being exposed to. This video tells this story very well.
The video has generated somewhat of a cottage industry for celebrity media, and articles about it are in abundance, but while many major media outlets discuss the finer details of this masterpiece of a video, few are willing to connect the dots and alert young viewers to the covert intention of psychic snuff porn such as this.
As with all spiritual development, though, awareness is the key to controlling the contents of the mind, both what the mind produces as thoughts, and what the mind consumes as food. Knowledge of this type of overt occult programming through imagery is immunity to it’s negative effects on the psyche.s
Sigmund Fraud is a survivor of modern psychiatry and a dedicated mental activist. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com where he indulges in the possibility of a massive shift towards a more psychologically aware future for humankind.