Monday, February 19, 2018
Anyway, this was what I was privileged to behold. It is an advertisement, for the film Get Out, but it wrapped around the paper, covering up the actual front page news stories. Oh don't worry, those were just as racialistically oriented as the ad, but that the Times chose to feature this full four page movie ad to lead its Sunday issue says a lot.
In fact, I addressed this very principle in my latest home page piece. The Times is merely a large powerful megaphone for the World Operatives sworn to inject the most robustly virulent humanist dogma into the minds of those who refuse to follow The Word instead.
The message here is clear. It is not as much that Jordan Peele has found a poetic new way of talking about racism, but that he's spewed a viciously tired way of accusing all white people of a systemic racism that exists only in the minds of those captivated by the Society.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we're all racists, I understand that -- but so are Jordan Peele, the editors of the Times, and those who enable this ugly feature of the culture war to fester. We are not racists because we're white, we're racists because we're sinners, all of us guilty before a God who holds us accountable for far worse than racism.
Of course hard core racialists have a habit of going apoplectic over that kind of a statement. Racism is the absolute worst thing on the planet to many people.
I saw another horrifically racialist film last night, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri. (A few spoilers follow, just so you know.) It was packed with all kinds of the standard assumptions about how racist the police are and how inept they are and just how good it feels to haul off with tons of violence against it all, especially when it comes from such a viscerally compelling protagonist like a Frances McDormand character.
There was even a scene when the McDormand character rips a huge new asshole on a Catholic priest who visits her home to urge her to take down the messages on these billboards. Interesting her analogy: she likened the priest to a member of a gang, and that when the gang does something evil then the unwitting member of the gang is culpable because he's in the gang. She pulls no punches by even making a reference to the church's rampant sexual abuse scandal.
That's all fine and true and the rage is certainly understandable! The intriguing thing is that some reviewers found it much like a Flannery O'Conner story. O'Conner was a devout Catholic who wrote graphically about the worst in people then subtly showcased some mildly redeeming quality in them that made her stories so appealing.
Thing is the film has received rave reviews, except that I'd been reading it has fallen back a bit in the Oscar buzz. Huh. I wonder why? Apparently the reason is that it is not racialist enough. Please. The idea is that one of the main characters is a particularly uncouth police deputy (played by Sam Rockwell) with a terrible racist streak, yet as the movie comes to a close he seems to have "found" that "redemption." He essentially has a change of heart, starts being a bit more kind and understanding, and then helps the McDormand character chase down a rapist. End of movie. (Yeah, well, that whole thing deserves some attention, but not now.)
The critics getting the most airplay seem to feel that such a racist bastard should not be let off the hook so easily. Oh my. These racialists are just flat-out diabolical. I mean I may not quite understand this, so forgive me, but is the crime of racism just so reprehensible to them that should such a prominent film introduce even the smallest sense of mercy into the mix that it should be so widely dismissed?
The screenwriter is nominated for an Oscar and is also a lapsed Catholic. When I see that someone is a lapsed Catholic I generally think of someone who considers the Catholic Church bad for sexual abuse scandals and backwards patriarchal male-only-priests type things, then slips off into the humanist dogma and links up with progressively-minded organizations who promote those things. Certainly not all, I don't want to stereotype at all, but really, at least the most prominent ones do -- like moviemakers.
You can see it all over his film, though. The McDormand character is livid about just about anything that isn't in tune with the latest progressive agenda item. It is not overtly political, but it is not unclear. The humanist is the one who is really the one who is the most kind and sensitive and caring and bold and courageous to fight for this aggrieved group's rights and that aggrieved group's rights! Yeah how righteously wholesome!
So you've got wickedly sinful people trying to find redemption. Some go over with the humanists because they haven't a clue about the real redemption. They only know the Catholic Church and we all know how bad that is... so that Jesus thing? Not happening. If we want to get rapists, we'll have to hunt them down ourselves.
That's the message of this film, from a lapsed Catholic who only knows that he must have faith in a Caesar who has failed him and now flounders as best he can to find a better version of him. He hasn't the faintest notion of The Real Redemption because he's never been introduced to Him.
And the Society of Jesus, the guys with all the versions of Jesus they'd like you to embrace, they're perfectly happy with that. Their job is not as much to get you in the Catholic Church, but to keep you from Jesus. If being a Catholic gets you there, fine. If spitting on the Catholic Church gets you there, then that works too.
Either way as long as you are intractably in Caesar's grip, then it works for them, they've done their job.
Three Billboards is just another weapon in their arsenal.
Unless, of course you are a follower of Christ, you see it for what it is, your own faith in the real merciful life-gushing Christ flourishes, and you can better articulate what's happening here to the Flannery O'Conner types (there are so many -- the field is ripe for harvest!) so they may understand and know The True Rich Beautiful Redemption.