The article, "The dog and pony show of year round electioneering and the mainstream media," as well as the discussion that followed on the lack of civility in the world and how we are being led by the secular humanists into lives of barbarity and crude behavior was excellent — true on every point and it provided much food for thought!
During the sixties the social media elite created the idea of the antihero, an unshaven drunkard, foul mouthed, irreligious, crude, violent and of course divorced. He lives in a unkempt room in a boarding house or rundown apartment and chain-smokes between eruptions of foul language and filthy one liners. His clothes are disheveled as is his hair, and he stumbles about the room in a vain effort to clear the alcoholic stupor from his addled brain. Then suddenly he becomes the standard bearer of a carefully chosen moral crusade that he pursues throughout the rest of the movie — which is shot by an idiot director who thinks filming by an equally drunk cameraman with a swaying, jerking camera, is a reflection of brilliant modern cinematography. This new thinking has taken over the film industry so that now our youth feel that to be socially acceptable and cool — they must imitate the antihero.
The girls in these movies all talk like sailors, wear clothes that would embarrass a street walker, and look upon virginity as a disgusting disease that much be immediately rendered obsolete. This is done by taking said virtuous young damsel and introducing her to the wonderful world of uncommitted sex with a drug-addled, nitwit young man who speaks in fragmented, unintelligible sentences and strange utterances and whose hair is arranged in a series of spikes with their tips painted bright orange. The guys speak to the girls as if they hated them and never does one witness any sign of chivalry or even good manners expressed toward the young lady, no matter how beautiful she may be. When I grew up, to have a beautiful girlfriend brought all the best manners out in her date. One was very careful to always be complementary and never insult your date in any way. Now, it is if the guy could take her or leave her and she tolerates all of his crude behavior as if it were a point of attraction. In fact, women are told that the best date is the "bad boy". This of course is the social misfit who has a prison record, likes to physically abuse his women, and sports a number of tattoos depicting sexual themes or violence.
Social engineering by the Hollywood Left
Of course throughout the film we are exposed to every left/liberal cliche and bits of condensed dogma that they can squeeze into a one and a half hour film. Each film is designed to contain at least one example of the many leftist causes — that is, at least one homosexual couple, a Catholic priest who is a pedophile or a Baptist preacher railing against sexual sin, a handicapped person who is mistreated by a compassionless conservative (spouting Nazi slogans), an environmentalist railing against capitalism, and of course all positions of power in the film — the sheriff, the chief of police, the mayor, the head of the CDC, the chief of surgery — are all either women, who are arrogant and domineering and without question in charge, or blacks proudly spouting leftist, politically correct snippets. These icons of the left are rarely portrayed as religious or, heaven forbid, conservative. Yes, there are conservatives in each of these positions and a growing number of black police chiefs who are quite outspoken in their conservatism. And there are a number of women conservatives in powerful positions who are gentle, sweet, compassionate, Christians or Jews.
The left is always railing about stereotypes yet no one in our society resorts to stereotypes more than the left — all Southerners are portrayed as uneducated, racist, violent, morons with at least three missing teeth up front and married to their sisters or first cousins. This is especially true of movies about Mississippi — I have even heard it said that Southerners are so stupid that they don't believe in evolution. To the leftist movie makers and TV programmers, all religious people are hypocrites and closet perverts.
Hypocrites at large
Speak of hypocrites, the left tell us that we must do something about drugs as it is destroying our youth, yet they not only forget that it was they who introduced the youth to the wonderful world of drugs during the sixties, but they also have the main characters in their movies lighting up and passing around weed and using other mind-altering drugs. They scream for gun control, yet all of their movies are filled with gun violence. They are all for birth control and abortion but they have every female in their movies portrayed as a nymphomaniac, bed hopping girl who uses language like a valley girl. All families are dysfunctional and dad is either out of the picture or a babbling nitwit. The children are all wise and we can always
depend on them not only having all the correct answers but saving the day at the end of the tangle of poor writing and spasmodic camera work. In each family, we have to suffer through the loud, obnoxious, troubled child most often dressed in his or her all black gothic uniform, waxing eloquent on the evils of life in the United States which leaves them at the point of suicide. Of course, of all the other "normal" family members, they alone are the compassionate, open minded, considerate and empathetic member of the family and they possess a wisdom of the neoplatonist professor.
This is but a glimpse of the world that the left has created with its vision of utopian bliss. As we have witnessed in Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Southeast Asia, China, Venezuela, Brazil and dozens of other countries, utopian collectivism does not bring about utopia — it brings about the destruction of society — anarchy — which is the foundation of totalitarian dictatorships.
Written by Russell L. Blaylock, MD
Dr. Russell L. Blaylock is President of Advanced Nutritional Concepts and Theoretical Neurosciences in Jackson, Mississippi. He has written numerous path-blazing scientific papers and many books, including Excitotoxins — The Taste That Kills (1994), Bioterrorism: How You Can Survive (2001), Health and Nutrition Secrets (2002), and Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients (2003). He is Associate Editor-in-Chief and a Consulting Editor in Basic Neuroscience for Surgical Neurology International (SNI).
This article may be cited as: Blaylock RL. Contemporary popular culture and the antiheroes of the Hollywood Left. HaciendaPublishing.com. March 10, 2016. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/contemporary-popular-culture-and-antiheroes-hollywood-left-russell-l-blaylock-md
Copyright ©2016 Hacienda Publishing Inc.
The Hollywood left, the antihero, and a dystopic future
by Dr. Miguel A. Faria
Dr. Blaylock's description of Hollywood's antihero is colorful — accurate representations of the typical protagonists depicted in the Hollywood movies of the last three or four decades. It is only that the vulgar aspects are getting worse and the antiheroes more depraved as the years pass. It is interesting that the antihero, as defined by Merriam Webster, is simply a main character “who does not have the usual good qualities that are expected of a hero.” But Hollywood has elevated him to an omnipresent cinematographic deity that unfortunately is imitated by impressionable youths, whose parents in the political correct environment of contemporary culture are reluctant to correct, not only in behavior but also as to moral conduct.
The antihero becomes the role model for impressionable youth
Not surprisingly (more in tune with the popular culture), an Urban dictionary defines these antiheroes very accurately as, “darker heroes, jerks, pathetic, hard, jaded, or mean.” And even explains why the public is so approving of these antiheroes: “…they also have physical attractiveness…. Mostly they are intriguing and can therefore can be very, very, SEXY especially if you love bad boys (girls).” And therein lies the rub, these antiheroes of Hollywood, as noted further by the Urban dictionary, “gain the sympathy of the audience.” These antiheroes are admired by an audience, who is no longer educationally able to recognize the real attributes of a classic hero; no longer capable of recognizing literary taste and verbal eloquence — instead they are entertained by the unredeeming vulgarities, sex, and violence, without recognizing a good story. Moreover, progressive Hollywood producers would rather promote fictitious criminals who, despite being serial killers, also have "their amiable good sides"! This is condoned by moviegoers because more and more we are dealing with a shallow public, semiliterate audiences, and poorly educated youths who no longer read the classics and thus are incapable of recognizing real heroes and having difficulty making moral choices. Today's youngsters are being brought up in situational ethics and moral relativism, "educated" in morally neutral schools and reared by parents imbued with politically correctness, and who laugh with them at the nonsense on the screen “without making judgments” in moral shallowness and blissful ignorance of literature, art, and their own history — in short, a society in free fall intellectual decadence.
Social engineering — art attempting to dictate life or just plain politics?
As to how blacks are depicted by Hollywood perhaps it could be that Hollywood is attempting to influence life for the best. We can speculate that the elitist Hollywood intelligentsia may actually be attempting to provide black youth with role models. The problem is that these fictitious role models, as Dr. Blaylock describes, are liberal stereotypes with little connection to real life. And yet, Hollywood could have provided real life role models. We have great black Americans living today that Hollywood and the media could promote: Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Dr. Ben Carson, etc. But the Hollywood progressives won’t use them because these real Americans don’t provide the snippets. Besides they are of a different political persuasion, and conservatism Hollywood despises. This neglect of accomplished black conservatives is not only contrary to the progressive’s own policy of diversity, but unfair to the individual. Even the story of President Obama could be used to instruct black youths that they can succeed; instead the mainstream liberal media constantly indoctrinate black youths to the lie that they cannot succeed without government assistance — choosing to promote class warfare, racial strife, and sensationalism for their political value and their own self-interest.
And what about Hispanics? Latin-Americans are almost always depicted as drug dealers and hoodlums. If most of the antiheroes are white or Hispanic, doesn't Hollywood understand that according to the laws of human nature this engenders hostility in those so depicted, perhaps even causing backlash and resentment. Affirmative action in Hollywood (for those who are more equal than others) was established supposedly to even the playing field over four or five decades ago. Has it worked?
And is all of this racial and ethnic representation remotely accurate? How long will art continue to misrepresent life? We must conclude that stereotyping is allowed when it is politically correct or when directed at certain groups, but certainly not at other groups that are politically protected. Catholics and evangelicals are fair game in all spheres. Ditto for Hispanics being portrayed as criminals and members of gangs. Needless to say "southern red necks" are fair game year round. Blacks and women are protected and promoted as long as they toe the politically correct progressive line. How long will this politically geared social engineering project last?
The presidential campaign of Donald Trump supposedly has shown thar there are many “angry white males,” who have been alienated (for decades). I would venture to say that there are many angry Americans, and not just among Republicans as the media would have us believe but also Democrats and Independents. The government has too much power and is out of control, and the resultant anger runs deep. Dr. Ben Carson, the black neurosurgeon who recently dropped from the presidential race, has just endorsed Trump, as the GOP candidate “who best represents social conservatives.” In the Colorado primary election, Trump received the majority of Hispanic votes. I’m still surprised that Hispanics have not noticed that in Hollywood along with “southern red necks” and Italian "mafiososos," they are fair game in the stereotyped in the Hollywood culture.
Martin Luther King’s dictum that a man should be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character should be applied not only to African-Americans, but also in ethnicity, political persuasion, religion, and heritage, applied to Hispanics, Catholics, evangelicals, Italian-Americanss, and "southern red necks."
Dr. Blaylock also intimates the assault on traditional family values. I agree. This has been in effect also for several decades. Why? G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) provided the answer when he wrote many years ago, “The ideal for which the family stands is liberty. It is the only institution that is at once necessary and voluntary. It is the only check on the state that is bound to renew itself as eternally as the state, and more naturally than the state.” As an impediment to the unrestrained power of the State and the degeneration of society imitating the degrading popular culture — the family is a bastion of stability and tradition that must be demolished by the Hollywood elites and their allies in the liberal media to recreate the world in their own image. Years ago I wrote that the campaign against child abuse was more about government power and about breaking families than about justice and child protection. It turns out that is the case as advances in neuropsychiatry reveals the reconstructive nature and fluidity of memory and the consequent fallacy of relying on implanted (false) memories in children by child psychologists and social workers with excessive zeal.
Hypocrisy galore in conclusion
Talking about hypocrisy, liberals indeed love to throw at conservatives the label of being hypocrites on the issue of religion. But what about the Hollywood moguls who decry money and profits for everyone else but themselves? Imagine the self-righteous indignation of the antihero, while portraying the evil rich people as uncaring and obsessed only with money and material possession. All the while, such Hollywood producers, like chic Bob and Harvey Weinstein (and many others), who spilled out politically-correct shibboleths and promote liberal causes, including gun control (while having their violent, heavily tattoed antiheroes armed to the teeth shooting other miscreats or hapless victims) — all the while laughing all the way to the bank, being many times richer than the evil wealthy people lambasted in their movies!
Finally, It never fails to amaze me how the liberal politicians and progressive reformers persistently militate for “change,” and "look forward to the future." And yet the future that is ironically depicted more and more in Hollywood films is a surreal, amoral, cold, totalitarian, nightmarish dystopia — a vision that George Orwell (1903-1950) prophesized was "a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Written by Dr. Miguel Faria
Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He is an Associate Editor in Chief and a World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), and an Ex-member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-05; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002), Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).
Copyright ©2016 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
This article may be cited as Faria MA. The Hollywood left, the antihero, and a dystopic future. Hacienda Publishing, March 13, 2016. Available from: http://www.haciendapublishing.com/articles/contemporary-popular-culture-...
Notice: This article was first published by haciendapublishng .com on March 13, 2016 and it is "reprinted" by popular demand!