Now is not a time to psychoanalyze the attacker by using a media-supplied telescope that already said he was dead, and that there were multiple attackers.  Media: STOP, please.  There will be time to pursue answers and justice after Christmas.  We must remember that family members lost loved ones just before the holidays.  Justice and answers will come with time.

When stories of this kind break, the weatherman becomes the most accurate part of the newscast. We know nothing right now. We know less than nothing because too much of what we’re told is wrong.

All we know is that people are dead and wounded, and families and loved ones are suffering. That’s all that matters right now. The rest is noise.

Fortunately for Moore, we live in a free society. Despite the fact that his films are comprised of antics and obnoxious absurdities that only small-minded Americans would believe in their totality, he has every right to continue his idiocy. It is the coverage of Moore and his half-witted films that cause one to question the media’s promotional motives.

Mainstream outlets can’t seem to get enough of Moore, as they offer him positive coverage galore and provide him with valuable air time to push his insidious projects. Meanwhile, conservative film projects receive little to no praise – or even attention, for that matter.

A few weeks back, LA Times blogger Patrick Goldstein wrote a snarky post about conservative reaction to Moore’s film. Aside from dismissive commentary about why conservatives are overreacting, Goldstein offered up what he saw as proof that not all media outlets give Moore a free pass. He wrote,

…Variety has the first authoritative review up of Moore’s film — and it hardly reads like a liberal valentine, with just as many caveats as kudos. It calls “Capitalism” one of Moore’s best films but goes on to say: “There’s still plenty here to annoy right-wingers, as well as those who, however much they agree with Moore’s politics, just can’t stomach his oversimplification, on-the-nose sentimentality and goofball japery.”

If calling the film one of Moore’s best ever qualifies as “authoritative,” I suppose journalists asking then-candidate Barack Obama how his parents would feel about his accomplishments if they were still alive qualifies as “hard-hitting investigative journalism.” And don’t even get me started on the semantic inequality present in the penning of “right-wingers” versus “those who…agree with Moore’s politics.”

How about a fact check, Goldstein? Even one? You can’t tell me there isn’t someone refuting at least one of the “facts” present in Moore’s film. It’s not just “oversimplification” that liberals and conservatives, alike, should be concerned about. Moore manipulates events and happenings and creates an aura of understanding that has the foundational value of quicksand. And that brings me to a Reuters piece (carried by none other than The New York Times) entitled, “Michael Moore’s “Capitalism” Economical With Facts.” According to the article,

…the film launches a call for socialism via a popular uprising against the evils of capitalism and free enterprise. Although it’s less focused than “Sicko” or “Fahrenheit 9/11,” this competition entry is a typical Moore oeuvre: funny, often over the top and of dubious documentation, but with strongly made points that leave viewers much to ponder and debate after they walk out of the theater.

In what other venue would a documentary, book or professional record earn the distinction of being of “dubious documentation,” while making strong points that will inspire debate and dialogue? Usually, if the basis is not founded on fact, the argument can – or should, rather – go no further.

The piece goes on to admit that Moore is not known for objectivity or “impeccable” research, and that he favors Obama as a symbol of hope in the film. Now, for the article’s a-bomb. According to Reuters,

Moore has assembled a collection of nearly unbelievable horror stories to illustrate why capitalism and democracy do not go hand in hand, like a privately owned juvenile correctional facility, which paid the local judge to jail teens for misdemeanors.

Wow.

And then there’s the Washington Post piece entitled, “For ‘Capitalism,’ Moore Sells Short Politicians of all Denominations.” The lead says it all: “Just when it looked as if conservatives might be cornering the market on angry populism, along comes Michael Moore.”

I suppose those liberals who threw bleach on delegates at the Republican National Convention were lovable Furby-like creatures – not angry populists. After all, the Republicans have apparently already dominated that market.

I could go on and on. While most American outlets covered the film’s synopsis, scope, theme, etc., many in the mainstream media failed to point out Moore’s glaring hypocrisy. How can a man who has makes millions off of his anti-American rhetoric have the audacity to make a film about the evils of capitalism? It took the gusto of a British journalist to really delve into the insanity. The Telegraph’s Will Heaven wrote the following:

Don’t be fooled by the scruffy cap and trampish demeanour. Moore is as well-to-do as the “stupid white men” which he has made millions of dollars from criticising…

Sadly for Michael Moore, many of the people that should be watching his films don’t get the joke either. He is supposed to be the champion of the oppressed, who spends his career holding the rich and famous to account. Now he’s one of them, and lapping up the lifestyle like a banker in boom time, it makes no sense.

Kudos to Heaven and The Telegraph for writing the most honest piece I’ve seen on Michael Moore’s deafening hypocrisy. While American media outlets seem encapsulated in wonder by Moore’s outlandish work, it seems the Europeans – who are typically quite receptive of his films – are onto his antics. Now, if we could only get the rest of America and the media on board the “reality express,” we’d be golden.

On September 10, Andrew Breitbart launched his new site, BigGovernment, with hidden-video camera footage of two young conservative activists who’d gotten Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) employees to advise them on hiding prostitution profits from the IRS. Within hours, Breitbart was doing interviews with reporters who wanted to know how, exactly, the story had come about, and why Big Government was releasing the videos and the identity of the muckrackers — 25-year-old James O’Keefe III and 20-year-old Hannah Giles — so slowly.

“It was strategized,” Breitbart told TWI this week, so “that they would be deprived of the type of information that a defense attorney would try to gather in order to create a defense.”

Who were “these people?” They were not just the leaders or members of ACORN itself. “They” were the Democratic Party, the White House, the progressive Center for American Progress and its president John Podesta. The “Democrat-media complex” is Breitbart’s name for the whole apparatus. “We deprived them of information,” Breitbart explained, “so that they couldn’t come up with a vile, kill-the-messenger attack with the media doing the groundwork for them.”

The success of Breitbart’s strategy was immediate, stunning, and is still ricocheting around the political world. Five days after the story broke, the U.S. Senate voted 83-7 to prevent ACORN from receiving any federal funding. Two days later, the House of Representatives did the same. Meanwhile, Breitbart was talking to more reporters, amused at how the “kill-the-messenger attack” was playing out. When one report from The Washington Post called him for a story about O’Keefe and Giles, Breitbart compared their tape to the photos of Abu Ghraib prison released in April 2004. (more…)

Like most bloggers, I write for more than one website.  It’s rather like being a syndicated columnist, except that little or no money changes hands.  But, as a writer who hopes to influence public opinion, you want to have as many readers as possible.

The strange event took place on a Tuesday.  It came in the form of an e-mail from Jonathan Garthwaite, who runs Townhall, a website I’ve contributed to for nearly four years.

The message read: “Dear Burt: As everyone is painfully aware, the economy is forcing companies to make difficult decisions.  Townhall.com is no different.  We take our commitment to our readers and our bottom line very seriously.  Similarly, we are constantly reassessing our editorial lineup.  We end up making tough decisions that aren’t always fun.

“I know it won’t please you to know that we’ve decided to discontinue carrying your column.  It was not a decision make (sic) carelessly.  Picking between colleagues, friends and talented writers is never easy.

“Thank you very much for sharing your insights with Townhall.com readers over the years.  Sincerely, Jonathan.”

I must confess I was shocked to receive an electronic pink slip after all this time.  I sent Garthwaite an e-mail asking which other writers were being made to walk the plank, but he said he wasn’t free to share that information.  I did get him to agree to post a notice on the following Friday, lest readers simply assumed that I had died.

The reason I’m sharing this with you isn’t because I regard this as a case of blatant censorship.  This isn’t the federal government silencing me.  Townhall has every right to post or not post any writer for any reason.  I don’t believe I or anyone else has the inalienable right to have his articles disseminated.  There are many more important issues than whether or not a blog decides to cut me loose.  Okay, I exaggerate.  There aren’t many things more important, but there are, I’m almost certain, several that rival it.

That said, I fear that there are dark forces at play.  You see, although there was the reference in Garthwaite’s e-mail to the weak economy and the bottom line, there had been no prior discussion between Townhall and me about money.  At least not for quite a while.  When I first started writing for them back in 2005, Townhall was paying me $35 for an article.  But I was writing faster than they were posting, so they agreed to run two-a-week, and I agreed to lower the price to $20 each.  And so it has remained.

But if they were cutting me loose over money, wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to suggest we revert to one-a-week or even ask me if I would write for less, even for free?  Isn’t that usually how these things work?

Therefore, I think reasonable people can agree that money makes a very questionable motive in all this.  And if I were popular enough with the readers to warrant Townhall’s posting two of my articles each and every week for all this time, lack of popularity wouldn’t appear to be the problem.

Now, understand, I am not the sort of person who readily subscribes to conspiracies.  If anything, I tend to pooh-pooh them because I don’t believe two people can keep a secret, and I’m dead certain that three or more can’t.  However, something about the timing couldn’t fail to grab my attention in much the same way that a mackerel lying under your pillow will certainly grab yours.

The piece that Townhall had posted on Monday of that week was an attack on our sworn enemies, which I had titled “The Straight Poop on Islam,” but which Townhall, in a fit of political correctness verging on insanity, had re-named “The Straight Talk on Islam.”

Perhaps it was sheer coincidence that the very next day, I was let go.  Maybe the one thing had absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Perhaps somewhere along the line, Cause and Effect had gone to Reno for a divorce and I just hadn’t heard about it.

But at least now you understand why I can’t help wondering if the folks at Townhall got an offer they couldn’t refuse — perhaps a call from someone threatening to send them a ticking CAIR package.

So if there was one thing I learned from the coverage of those big protests last weekend, it’s that signs matter.

See, when the media covers an event they don’t really want to understand, they will focus on the protester’s placards. But as a regular, long-term consumer of all things media (and fiber), I cannot recall this ever happening with the media coverage of the WTO protests, the NOW marches, the no-nuke concerts, the anti-war demonstrations. If I remember correctly (and regular use of Ambien has made it a challenge), the media instead chose to focus on the heroic faces of the protesters. Often, these folks would be huddled together, holding a candle, singing “Give Peace A Chance,” or something equally annoying. Fact is, they were young, heroic, speaking truth to power – so who cares if the signs were offensive: that reality would only undermine the ideal. That’s why you never saw them.

To me, most of the sillier signs this weekend didn’t reflect idiocy, but inexperience. I’m willing to bet nearly all of these folks had never been to a march before, unless it involved Dimes. Which is why the event resembled a picnic, not a protest. Sure, there were some tacky signs, but they were usually held by tacky people who sport more buttons than friends. And the fact is, leftist protesters have had far more experience doing this sort of thing, so they know the drill. They know when to cry, and when to raise a fist(after smashing a chair through a Starbucks window).

Finally, you media types who call these folks crackpots need to realize you’re only doing so because to them, you’re irrelevant. They no longer need you. Those protesters believe in the individual over the system, small over big government, private versus public. They don’t believe in you.

Granted, however, I’ve been known to call people who disagree with me – the Garafalo’s, the Olbermann’s – crazy, too.

But I’m right.

And if you disagree with me, you’re probably a racist.

Just as we all sat down around the conference table, my cell phone rang. Given the importance of the meeting, I normally would have let the call go to voice mail, but when I looked at the number I knew I had to pick it up. This person would not be calling unless it was an absolute emergency. I opened the phone and didn’t even get the “Hello” out of my mouth before a shaken and somewhat scared voice said, “Rusty when can you be here?”

The caller was my most trusted source in Mexico. Slightly stunned by the abrupt nature of the call, I responded inquisitively, “Pretty soon, I should wrap up here in New York in a couple of days, why?”

“We have to talk right away, we have a huge problem down here and you’re in the middle of it,” he exclaimed.

When I returned to Texas a few days later, I called my source and we arranged to meet at a public place. He got in my truck and we drove away. As I found a place for us to park we quickly disposed of the normal chit-chat about family and business; I could clearly see he was rattled about something, so we got down to what was on his mind.

He looked outside the window, took a deep breath, looked me square in the eyes and said, “Kidnap orders have been issued for a long list of people along the border and one of the names on that list is yours.”

“Do you understand what I’m saying to you?” Before I could answer he added, “Rusty they have the cops, customs agents and the military looking for you down here, if you cross that bridge into Mexico tonight, you won’t make it a block down the street before they’ll grab you and take you away.”

I fully understood the point my friend was making. This was not the first time a threat had been made on my life. You don’t report on the cartels in Mexico without getting the attention of the individuals you document on film and write about. They are going to come after you sooner or later and I’m no exception to these rules.

The head of Mexico’s National Human Rights commission reported recently that 52 journalists and media workers have been killed in the last decade in Mexico. Most of the slayings remain unsolved. Seven other reporters went missing and six newspaper offices were attacked with explosives over the same period. The president of that same commission was quoted as saying “Impunity has become the hallmark of the aggressions against journalists in Mexico.”

I’ve had a front row seat to the attacks made on the journalists all over Mexico and the United States for the past five years. The bombing of numerous newspapers and television stations combined with the assassinations of reporters has constrained the free press in what is supposed to be the strongest democracy in Latin America.

The armed attacks and threats by drug traffickers against media organizations have made Mexico the world’s most dangerous country after Iraq for journalists, according to the French media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders.

Freedom of the press is one of the most sacred institutions in this country and it too is under attack. In July 2007 several newspapers in Texas received notification of specific threats made by Los Zetas to kill an American reporter in Laredo. The San Antonio Express News published the story about the threat on its reporter and decided to pull him from the paper’s Laredo bureau.

That same year a local television station in McAllen, Texas, was set to broadcast a series of reports and interviews showing that the Zetas had ramped up its army of mercenaries and was preparing for all-out war. The station received a credible death threat from the Zetas shortly after airing the first part of their series, making them pull the stories.

To many people this is an invisible war zone. But to those who live and report in this war zone, these threats are real.

I’ve spent nearly five years documenting the Mexican drug cartels, including the Zetas. After I made the documentary Drug Wars: Silver or Lead, the threats we received were for the most part, directed simply to get us to give up. And they came close to achieving that goal. I had cast and crew members quit in fear of their lives because of these threats, I had sources back out, and I had people in my own government back away from me.

There is one axiomatic truth that’s worth repeating. If you go after the narcos or the corrupt police who do their bidding, they will go after you. It matters not who or where you are—these guys are not going to walk away quietly from $40 billion a year.

According to the 2009 National Drug Threat Assessment report, Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations generate, remove and launder between $18 billion and $39 billion in wholesale drug proceeds annually. This is just the dollars they are laundering and taking home and does not include the profits that they leave here in the U.S., such as  real-estate businesses or other tangible assets. They also use drug profits to trade for weapons.

But now I recognize this as probably the most credible threat directed at me. Part of me has known all along this was inevitable but I was still taken aback. I’ve obviously struck a nerve with these guys. And now I’m confronted with a choice.

Getting all the facts is of paramount importance to the men and women who practice good journalism in this country. Indeed, exposing the truth in a free press has done more for positive change and government and corporate accountability in our nation than perhaps any other single component, but that simply does not fit in the world of terror that the narcos create and perpetuate. Needless to say, a threat by narco-terrorists from Mexico to kill or kidnap American reporters on U.S. soil should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values democracy and freedom.

Every time I think about backing off, tucking tail or going to a new line of work in my field, I think of those brave souls that are down in Mexico risking life and limb every day to report just slivers of the truth. Take William Slemaker, for instance, whose daughter was kidnapped by these same terrorists in 2004 and she has yet to be found. Still, Slemaker continues to speak out against these criminals every chance he gets. I think about the law enforcement officials like the Border Patrol agents, the county sheriff’s and their deputies that live along that border and are under constant threat by these narco-insurgencies.

So, in all humility, I have to say, the fear of what these narco-terrorists are doing and are continuing to do to our two countries., exceeds the fear of what they’ll do to me for reporting it.

Within days of the attacks, it began. Without a word, those who had endlessly looped the video of the beating of Rodney King stopped airing footage of Americans jumping to their deaths from the burning World Trade Center. Not long after, those who would later sear the images of a few misfits at Abu Ghraib into the hearts and minds of the enemy, began the inevitable murmurs of “being responsible” when it came to airing footage of passenger planes exploding into the towers.

Soon, and predictably, the footage all but disappeared. 

Step one at chipping away at our resolve was complete, and all in the name of a few sophisticates doing what was best for us.

What followed was also expected.

The Leftists, these Enablers of Evil, stopped at nothing. Skewed coverage, front-page CIA leaks, taking it to the streets, Hollywood’s unholy brand of patriotism…The list is as endless as the dirty work was relentless. And yet, as they wielded their worst, 50 million people in two countries were liberated and we have not been attacked again … because of something else we’ve come to expect.

The valor and bravery of those charged with keeping us safe: The United States Military, the CIA (especially the interrogators), the FBI, our first responders and finally, something that was not expected…

The mettle of President George W. Bush.

“He kept us safe” is not an argument of last resort after the other side has finished ticking off well-rehearsed talking points, it is why George W. Bush is a great man.  

He Kept Us Safe.

And while he did, while the Enemy Within rained hell on him, this uncommonly decent man stood firm as he grew old before our eyes.

Where this country would be had he not possessed such unexpected grit is unthinkable.

And we now know what it is to live with the unease of him not being there.

God bless the men and women who guard the wall. God bless President Bush. God bless the grand and noble experiment that produced them.

Ah, the press. They just never get it right. Most people at the con dress like anyone else. It’ a small percent that wear costumes, but they stick out. Most of those people are there to have fun. They’re letting their hair down for the weekend. It’s like Halloween for geeks.

Imagine if the press were actually fair minded (ROFL!), then you might see something like this:

“Here we are at the Superbowl. Look at all these nutty loons wearing football jerseys in the crowds, and waving around the foam hands. How crazy are these people anyway? They even have riots in the streets. Back to you, Steve.”

Or…

“Here we are at the Rockapalooza. Look at all these wasted weirdos wearing rock clothes and all that goofy makeup. What makes them imagine their air guitar fantasies rate in the real world? Get a life, losers! Back to you, Jane.”

There really isn’t that much difference between people at Comic-Con and any other kind of fandom. The fans of comics, movies and TV are from the same walks of life the rest of humanity. And their interest in these things do not really make them less important or more absurd than fans of sports or music or whatever you can name. I mean, I have yet to hear about Comic Convention fans rioting in the streets and torching cars.

When I was leaving Comic-Con for the last time this year, a car pulling out of the lot passed the shuttle bus I was on with OBAMA SUCKS emblazoned on the rear window. I smiled. What do you know, we have diversity of opinion in fandom too. And then, at the first stop a guy in a Count Chockula outfit was getting off and he asked the driver directions to catch another bus. I had to smile again. I mean, there’s something really fun hanging around with a comic book crowd. Where else can go go and be surrounded by storm troopers, Batman wannabes, guys in Thor costumes, girls in Anime garb or riding a bus with Count Chockula?

These are my people. I have been around fans most of my life and generally, I find them entertaining. I have made friends at the Cons over the years who are doctors, cops, scientists, waiters, chefs, mechanics, musicians, actors, you name it. They come from all walks of life and from all over the world. They’re people like you and I, they just happen to enjoy what the Con has to offer. I have been to rock concerts and sports events and none of those things compares to the spectacle and interactive nature of a comic con.

In a Sports event or concert you are expected to sit down and watch the show, then leave. You might have a tailgate party first. But in comic cons you have a lot of different options. You can meet your favorite creators, listen to panels, play games, enter contests, see movies, hang out with people, go to a series of parties and dinners, engage in sing-a-longs, hell, I could go on and on. It’s like a festival, and there’s all sorts of fun to be had. That’s probably a large part of why it’s become such a huge success.

And success is one of the reasons the press stopped making fun of the Con attendees. They still look for people in costumes to interview, but their tone is more respectful. After all, the Con is a huge cash cow for the city of San Diego. It revitalizes downtown better than Christmas does. The restaurants and bars are full to bursting, The shops see lots of business and the hotels are booked solid for miles around. And that means lots of tax revenue for the city and state. No only that, the film business takes it very seriously. It’s a great place for them to reach the fans an talk directly to their potential audience.

The Con brings a lot of smiles to a lot of faces every year. If you had been there this weekend you would never know we lived in the worst recession since the great depression. The place was jumping and the money was flowing.

Good times were had all around. I can’t wait till the next one.

American Icon: “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There's nothing behind it.”

Vast, determined, highly successful forces and superior technologies dominated the theaters of WWII prior to America’s entry into the conflict after Pearl Harbor in 1941.  The Manhattan Project began in August of 1942, a couple of months before General George Patton invaded North Africa.  Character, strategy, and tactics played as large a role in dealing with Panzer and Tiger tanks as did Patton’s Shermans, of course, because firepower alone was insufficient in itself.  But the defeat of one totalitarian threat by 1945 was not apt to make much difference in taking down another in a place where school children were being trained to fight to the death for the Empire— with sharpened sticks.  The Manhattan Project, through funding, research, experimentation, design, development and production, met the challenge and made the difference.

The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Andy Warhol’s 17th birthday.

“Progressive” revisionist history would have it that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were atrocities which rank with the Holocaust.  An accepted general estimate of the death toll for both cities is about two hundred thousand, as compared to projected casualties for both sides of the conflict resulting from an invasion of Japan, which number, conservatively, in the millions.  Do the math.  Then again, a prolonged invasion with Stalin’s help costing more lives and helping establish Soviet hegemony in the region might have been nice, by progressive standards, but American victory prevented that.

Victory in the cultural theater of the war of ideas is the contemporary problem, however, and what is commonly called the “elite media” is the dominant, overwhelming force.  In contrast, for example, talk radio’s audience for conservative and independent ideas forms the choir who hears the sermons and appreciates the alternative viewpoints to the left-leaning MSM.  This is not to minimize talk radio’s importance, by any means, but to point out the need for developing a potential audience throughout the media, and everywhere the purveyors of “progressive pop” have the lion’s share of cultural impact.  Nothing less than a “velvet revolution” brought about by combined intellectual and production efforts on the scale of a Manhattan Project can be expected to effectively change the situation as it now stands.

The Andy Warhol Museum

The potential audience for such change, which includes a lot of kids who have nothing better to do, trends toward merely exercising the right to yell “F***” in a burning theater, the fire having been set by the aforementioned elites.  This audience’s attitudinal aesthetic is effortlessly absorbed, so predominant is it in their everyday experience.  The thought of TARGET stores selling merchandise featuring Ernesto Guevara’s iconic mug is as cool as anything else.  Thus children at the private Black Pine Circle School may delight in their identification with the proletariat and the belief that capitalism will fail by marking the watershed event of their middle school education with the symbol of the hammer and sickle— on their publicly-displayed class mosaic.  We all may be predisposed, if appropriately educated, to enjoy the irony.  Or not.

But minds can change, particularly if there’s something better to do than passively absorb propaganda.  It can be just as much fun to oppose it, even in subtle ways.

As an artist and a capitalist, Andy Warhol had a different take on such communist icons.  One needs no highly refined eye to be struck by ways in which he presents them, for the most part, as graphically superficial or devoid of power.  Perhaps this speaks to his cultural heritage from “the old country”.  Somewhat surprisingly, Warhol, in fact, never created any version of the “Che” portrait, though he did once authenticate a forgery done by a Factory worker— not surprisingly, for all cash involved.

The general attitudinal aesthetic, or as one might have it, the interaction between culture and viewpoint, is critical in a democratic society.  It revolves to a great extent around the prevailing culture.  Right now leftist cultural hegemony holds the whip-hand over political processes and “correctness” generally.  The press, the schools, the intelligentsia, the liberal arts, and pop culture are particularly saturated with progressive, collectivist, elitist thought.  While the USSR rose and fell, and freedom was regained in the Bloc states as mentioned in the previous correspondence, such hegemony has had more than enough time to take hold in the West.

That these wretched, obsolete ideas, elsewhere cast into the trash-heap of history, are worthy of no more than mockery and condemnation is beside the point.  They’re alive, baby.  Why else would people be singing John Lennon’s “Imagine” every time the ball dropped on New Year’s in Times Square for the past four years, and likely forevermore?  Refer back to the link on “irony” above for a concise description of long-term processes, as envisioned by Antonio Gramsci, by which such outdated leftist influences survive.

Interestingly, while the process of saturating the West with Marxist ideologies took nearly a century, the Warhol Factory redefined the cultural landscape in a decade or less.  The progressive left had to surreptitiously fill academia, the press, and the entertainment industry with their supporters over time, since ingrained American values— and the Second Amendment— precluded other, quicker options.  That goal seemingly accomplished, the capitalist economic system can now be overburdened by the demands of special interests to the extent that it collapses.  The nature of the State can then be modified to control the economy and create a more ideal, pacifist, utopian system on the euro-socialist model.  Everyone can be “free” to lower their expectations and be happy with less, and the “world can live as one.”  Especially under the global caliphate likely to come next, if Western Europe is any indicator.

Warhol’s influence on culture, in contrast, might be seen as promoting freedom of expression and personal, autonomous vision in a social context.  As American history often illustrates, one person, acting with the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, can move mountains, especially with the support of other individuals.  Collective, progressive groupthink, however, has currently forced the issue that the idea of human freedom is a matter of dispute between those who favor individual liberty in Jeffersonian terms and those who demand collective “power to the people.”  Is there any doubt that the people in question are of the enlightened progressive left, who will be glad to dictate their demands to all?  Such thinking reduces everyone to second-class citizenship.  It replaces upward mobility with that of a lateral kind, in a totalitarian class system which might just as easily leave an Andrew Warhola few better options than sweeping factory floors in industrial Pittsburgh all his life.

Instead, he built his own Factory.

"Those who talk about individuality the most are the ones who most object to deviation, and in a few years it may be the other way around. Some day everybody will just think what they want to think, and then everybody will probably be thinking alike; that seems to be what is happening." —Andy Warhol, 1963

To recapitulate, Warhol’s was a commercial enterprise; it ignored boundaries between the fine arts and popular culture; its influence on everyday consumer culture, society, and even political resistance to totalitarian ideas was immense, shaping attitudes as well as images.  It is not Warhol’s content, but vision, methods, and means of manipulating media that provide lessons for those who would have an impact on pop culture and attendant attitudes.  Finally, and of critical importance, his was an American vision, based on that enemy of progressive thinking, that “cowboy” mentality of individualism, so despised by collectivists wherever they hold power, yet within the reach of all who are willing to think for themselves.

Collectivist, progressive conformity is the enemy of freedom everywhere.  It is the politically correct “enemy within” democratic governments, and it is exerting force throughout American culture and society.  It can ultimately gain total power— it can happen here— decades after it has been proven unequivocally rotten to the core among free peoples.  Its supporters have more money than they can spend, with billionaires on their side.  Power and money will bring it to pass if nothing is done.

Free and independent thinking is a common, potentially unifying factor among conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, and large numbers of artists, producers, musicians and consumers of popular culture.  Many of them may not like traditional viewpoints very much, but they still cannot stand the idea of being under the collective thumb of progressives.  There are more than enough such people capable of working together as critical thinkers for the cause of personal liberty, and they have more than enough reasons to do so.  As in the case of Andy Warhol’s Factory, they can have the impact of a Manhattan Project on the culture wars, facilitating a swift and irrevocable change in fundamental ways of seeing and thinking which reflect —and re-assert— American exceptionalism as a standard of excellence the moribund predictability of collectivism will forever fail to approach.

“The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even — if you will — eccentricity. That is, something that can’t be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned imposter couldn’t be happy with.”  —Joseph Brodsky, Nobel Prize Winner and 1991-92 Poet Laureate of the United States.

The contemporary pop cultural idea of a hero is everywhere draped in progressive, underdog guise.  The contrary, rebel image will be that of a new anti-hero, one who refuses to accept the collective will and all its commandments, one who is, in fact, the real underdog of the real underground.

No other ideological self-examination necessary.  It’s a simple question: Do you want to be free, or not? Heed Andrew Breitbart’s warning about pop culture.  Learn from Warhol as well as Reagan.  Create and support what you believe in. Connect.  Let those who control the system compete with the new realities brought into being.  Work from the outside or the inside, but make it happen.  Make it accessible to the greater audience beyond the choir-loft.  Find the money, lots of it, and be smart with it.  The culture war needs a Manhattan Project, and it will not be government-funded.  The future must be redefined.  It can be done.

It has been done before.

—SG

Andy Warhol also spoke that jewel of wisdom, presumably demonstrating a sense of humor in referring to his most famous quote.  Or was it, perhaps, prescient, albeit unintended foreknowledge?  Pity he’s not around to toy with Twitter.

Bridge as visual metaphor, Media as bridge, Pittsburgh.

Looking back at Part 1, we considered a couple of insights into Andy’s Pop Life with the aim of solving some problems surrounding Mr. Breitbart’s incisive assertion that conservatives must come to terms with popular culture, and more, use it to advantage, or fail catastrophically in countering the negative effects of said culture and restoring public confidence in fundamental ideals.  Narcissism, amorality, and an attitude of entitlement, as examples, speak poorly to the future of democracy, while the virtues of valuing others, the practice of ethical discernment and choice, and the elevating ideas of individual liberty and self-reliance are greatly to be desired in the body politic, and traditionally set America apart from typical “statist” governments around the world.  Evidence abounds of the former set of attitudes in common currency as reflected in pop culture; the latter set, highly prized by conservatives, goes sorely wanting for attention in movies, TV, music, etc.

The critical problem is that even people who are taught virtuous ideals and behaviors as kids get practically no reinforcement in the entertainment media for knowing, doing, and desiring what is generally called, in classical terms, The Good, which is determined in the greater part by the transmission of culture, conscience and common sense.  The rewards of such attitudes being as self-evident as the consequences for failure to acquire them, how may they be elevated in the popular culture?

As a visionary master of the Culture of Pop, Warhol’s work invites analysis, and previously the essentials of (1) commercial appeal for profitable outcomes and (2) elimination of distinctions between “highbrow” and “lowbrow” art were mentioned.  If it’s not hip and it does not sell, even to a niche market, it’s pointless and wasteful; since the rarefied sensibilities of cultural elites are of such little consequence outside their ivory towers and cocktail parties, crank up the heavy metal and unleash the moronic slapstick teen comedies, if that’s what it takes to deal with the issues and get the points across, specifically through thematic content.

In our next look at the Warhol canon, consider the obvious:

“It’s the movies that have really been running things in America ever since they were invented. They show you what to do, how to do it, when to do it, how to feel about it, and how to look how you feel about it. Everybody has their own America, and then they have the pieces of a fantasy America that they think is out there but they can’t see.”  —Andy Warhol

It takes actors and actresses, musicians and filmmakers, media mavens and individuals of charismatic character to thrust themselves and their ideas into the forefront of pop cultural awareness.  Jerks, nitwits, dirtbags and phonies do it every day, as Big Hollywood attests daily, because the template is cut for them and the infrastructure is in place to launch their downhill course.  Warhol, credited with coining the term “Superstar” which he applied—ironically, perhaps—to the loose troupe of lunatics, drag queens, and hangers-on who appeared in his films, parodied Hollywood culture with his Factory’s unstable stable of “sex symbols” and “celebrities,” growing all the while into a true media icon in his own right, ultimately hobnobbing with the genuine idols of stage and screen as a superstar himself.

Filmmaker John Waters followed much the same path, unfazed, as was Warhol, by the lack of blockbuster budgets, and has written and directed numerous crossover and mainstream movies in addition to his early, “underground” flicks.  For underground, read unsavory, demented, filthy, what you will, (and particularly offensive to conservative sensibilities) in both Waters’ and Warhol’s oeuvres.  The point, however, is about realized potential, not content, and about the degree to which anybody can do it.

Content which reflects The Good is the desired outcome in delivering a product for widespread Pop consumption; in its creation, contemporary technology goes a long way to minimize budget obstacles which would have been insurmountable in even the recent past.  “The Blair Witch Project” was made a decade ago for about thirty-five grand.  “Fireproof” was made for around a half-million.  Somewhere between those two budgets there is enough money, in the right hands, to build the beginnings of an alternate Pop universe, as Warhol did in a wide range of media.  Conservative hands, libertarian and independent hands, any like-minded people who want to get together—and get a grip—can, and should, give it a shot.  (Perhaps needless to say, in promotion and manipulation of image, such works should never be promoted as “conservative,” etc., any more than the others are promoted as “progressive.”  Let the critics and the Democratic Media Complex complain about that.)

The more such alternate worlds, the better, because audiences embrace the pleasures of participating, however briefly, in fully realized, well-defined imaginative realities, such as the “Star Wars” films, the “Mad Max” and “Lord of the Rings” trilogies, the “Seinfeld” and “X-Files” TV productions, and, for that matter, the entirety of the imaginary ”country” American society and landscape created by country music artists.  Rock and pop music create similar imaginary worlds, though the music industry as a whole continues in decline.

For a time it was said, “The Rolling Stones are not a band.  They are a way of life.”  That way of life is a continuum in the world of rock and roll, which is blasted all night followed by partying every day, to paraphrase KISS.  For party, read “indulge.”  Anyone can play.  Especially with karaoke or the Guitar Hero game, which provides just the imaginary setting for your rock and roll fantasy.

The degree to which anyone can do it: low-budget media-generated alternate universe by your correspondent. In Warhol's day, such an image would have involved considerable time, expertise and expense. Note subtle product placement of the famous Marshall Amplifier.

Video games—which currently surpass the movie industry in sales—put the players in such worlds, contending with or even surpassing the experiences of “real life” activities.  Individuals create such worlds with shameless self-promoting personal websites, Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites.  You can take high school kids on a field trip to Mount Rushmore or Auschwitz, but if you don’t keep them away from their phones or iPods, they might miss the whole thing.  That is the power of immersive digital media, which now means everyone can play.

Erstwhile film student Jim Morrison may have had no idea of what was coming when he expanded on Marshall McLuhan’s statement:  “Everyone should say, the media is the message, and the message is me,” but that is what is possible now, and that’s the message, in every form imaginable.  Camera held at arm’s length, snapping self.

The fifteen minutes Warhol mentioned have elapsed—everyone is famous.

Now what?  Pop culture demands glamour.  But it needs The Good.  It needs character, courage, and vision.

Tomorrow: Do The Warhol— Part 3 of 4: The Velvet (Underground) Revolution ]]> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sgraves/2009/07/24/do-the-warhol%e2%80%94-part-2-the-culture-of-personality/feed/ 21