HISTORY BY HOLLYWOOD

December 19th, 2016

Note (26DEC2016): A poem —
‘Twas Christmas Day and throughout the land,
Racial propaganda was cinematically at hand.

In “selected theaters”, Hidden Figures had opened as planned
To spread misinformation labelled as grand.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

In these United States of America, who in the present controls telling the history of the past? Who shapes Americans’ view of history? Who? The producers of entertainment — otherwise known collectively as “Hollywood”.

Consider that Americans’ most trusted person in the world is . . . .? You guessed it. An actor! Tom Hanks, whom Americans know not by his own persona but by those of the characters whom he has played via shadows projected onto an otherwise blank screen.

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

The real Tom Hanks? In reality, he may be a great guy. Who knows? What’s worse, who cares? Apparently, not the American public as a whole.

The Real History
“No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Since the cinematic studios moved from New York City to Los Angeles early in the 20th-century, “Hollywood” politically and sociologically has tilted towards The Left — economically, too, except as economics applies to “Hollywood”. Early on, some of its productions tested the bounds of common decency, leading to the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (established originally in 1909) finally to begin real censorship in the early 1930s. Need one comment on the current adherence in “Hollywood” today to common decency?

Then, beginning in the late 1930s “Hollywood” — a number of the most illustrious members of which were card-carrying Communists — evidenced a burst of good old, American traditionalism after Kristallnacht in Nazified Germany. Until that time, “Hollywood” had allowed Nazis’ censors dispatched to these shores by Adolf Hitler in Berlin to alter American cinematic productions. Hey, Germany represented a lucrative market — Nazis or no Nazis.

The Nazis’ censorship notwithstanding, also in the 1930s “Hollywood” began to promote the image of the American Negro. How? Initially, simply by inserting as so-called cameo-roles gratuitous glimpses of well-dressed, upstanding-looking Negroes, for example, standing in public buildings.

“Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.” -Deuteronomy 22:10

After World War Two, “Hollywood” accelerated its push to turn these United States of America from a predominantly Christian, Euro-Caucasoid nation into a so-called multi-cultural one; including the promotion of racial miscegenation, which had been illegal in many States and today remains contrary to Scripture.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

So went the words of the late-Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy about legislation promoting so-called familial reünification — legislation that was to open the floodgates to Africans, Asians, and Latins. Consequence? The dispossessing of the American majority. Meanwhile, Senator Kennedy — himself a philandering, cowardly drunk who later caused Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning in 1969 — was promising Mr. and Mrs. America that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. It was a flat-out lie.

He also flat-out lied with the following promise: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. Kennedy also lied when he promised that few immigrants would be from Asia.

“Not representative of the typical politician!” you say? Perhaps.

Once passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President, the bill did change the complexion of the nation. It drove a stake through the demographic heart of these United States as it had been previously.

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” – Jeremiah 17:10

“All for the better!” you say? Perhaps. Best to judge behavior by its consequences.

In doing so, forget your preconceived biases. Ask yourself the following: Objectively, are these United States better off today than in 1965? Economically? Educationally? Legally? Militarily? Politically? Sociologically?

Acceptance by the then soon-to-be dwindling Euro-Caucasoid majority reflected the incessant barrage of propaganda from the self-styled elitists of The Left in “Hollywood” — later the elitists in academia and the electronic Media. By 2008, the minds of Americans had become numbed to the point that voters elected a Marxist-oriented, Mohammedan-reared Mulatto of uncertain origin — someone who never had served in the military, never had owned a business, and never had held an honest job — whose primary goal seemed to be to have destroyed that which remained of “White America”. Consider his wife and he listening for twenty years to their pastor, Jeremiah Wright (b. 1941), screaming, “God damn America!”

How could such a transformation occur? Hollywood, for one!

It was said, for example, that without the actor Denzel Washington’s (b. 1954) idealized portrayals of Negroes in moving pictures Barack Hussein Obama II never could have moved into the White House.

The Latest
The most recent cinematic revision of history by “Hollywood” comes in the form of Hidden Figures. To begin, ask yourself the following: Whence came the name “computer”?

According to reports about Hidden Figures, its derivation lies in those electronic machines being named after a group of Negresses led by one Dorothy Vaughn at NASA. These women supposedly computed the trajectory for the rocket that carried the Astronaut, John Glenn (1921-2016), into orbit around Earth. Among them was the light-skinned Negress, Kathryn Johnson, who worked on the project as an electrical engineer. “Hollywood” and its sycophants now are characterizing these women as “the brains” behind NASA.

So, were these women actually the first human computers? No.

The truth is that U.S. Army contracted for the development of the first, functional electronic computer years previously during World War Two. The two, male, Euro-Caucasoid developers — John W. Mauchly and John “Pres” Eckert, Jr. at the University of Pennsylvania — named the machine after a group of Euro-Caucasoid women each laboring to compute the trajectories of individual pieces of artillery. These women were the first human “computers”. As a prelude to the future, the first electronic computer, Eniac with its 18,000 vacuum-tubes, was intended to replace them.

[Note: John von Neumann (1903-1957; aka/Johann von Neumann). Hungarian-Jewish mathematician, having made truly important contributions to both mathematics and physics as well as game-theory, sometimes incorrectly is credited with the development of the first electronic computer. See McCartney, S: Eniac. New York: Walker & Co. (1999).]

So, were the Negresses actually “the brains” behind NASA? Did they even provide the computations used by NASA? No.

Electronic computers actually provided the trajectories. Subsequently, these women checked the computations for possible errors.

Does Hidden Figures represent just another in a long line of historically-oriented productions that exceed by a wide margin poetic license and that fall into the category of misleading propaganda? Historical hogwash by “Hollywood”. Apparently.

Do Negroes require such phony propaganda in order to present a creative, productive image? Apparently, “Hollywood” believes that they do.

In this age of a declining American nation on fire, to present phony images of Negroes who, nevertheless, did make notable contributions is to demean those contributions and those who made them. Doing so only fuels the fire of divisiveness and resentment.

See “Truth & Consequences” herein.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

ONLY PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS, PLEASE

December 5th, 2016

Note (12DEC2016): Running true to form, Mr. Trump’s behavior remains unprincipled and unpredictable. One aspect, however, remains constant; that is, seeking public attention.

Witness his “Thank You Tour” as if campaigning still were in full swing. At the Army-Navy game, his appearance on television lasted to the point that he was interfering with the announcers’ coverage of the ongoing game. More unsettling is his apparent disregard for the Constitution, an attitude he has in common with Barack Hussein Obama II.

Does the troika of Obama with his war against “White America”, “Crooked Hillary” with her disregard for law and human life, and “The Donald” with his unprincipled, unpredictable showman’s style really represent the current state of these United States of America?

Let us recall that Science tells us, “Behavior has its consequences.”

-End-

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” -Article I, Section 6

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” -Article I, Section 9

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” -Article II, Section 1

emolument n.: the returns arising from office or employment usu. In the form of compensation or perquisites. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

The hereinabove represent those provisions in The Constitution of the United States of America related to benefits and gifts to public officials. In the late part of the 18th-century, the Framers need not have worried much about businessmen owning foreign commercial interests. Today, an increase in worry has become more reasonable and appropriate, in particular with reference to the worldwide foreign holdings and interests of President-Elect Trump.

The concern among the Framers was less that a Congressman or President might profit personally from emoluments bestowed by foreign governments and more that, by bestowing such emoluments, a foreign government might influence the American government. In contrast, the current concern seems more related to Mr. Trump’s profiting personally.

Many of the gang on The Left view “profit” as an obscenity. Accordingly, they demand that Mr. Trump divest himself not only of any command of his company but even of the company itself. Many of those making such demands are professional politicians to whom foreign holdings are as foreign as Uranus.

Should successful American businessmen such as Mr. Trump risk the fruits of their labors — labors often lifelong — in order to hold public office, even the presidency? Without Mr. Trump’s personal direction, for example, what will be the future course of that which he has built over the years? Who knows? Little wonder that so few of the best and the brightest seek public office, leaving the governing of the nation to too many foppish dolts.

Of note, the Emoluments Clause never has been litigated, so no opinions from the Court exist for guidance. That which does exist lies within the Clause itself; namely, the provision that Congress may grant its consent for a President Trump to conduct commercial dealings with foreign governments to the benefit of his company and himself as long as those benefits do not involve activities such as bribery that clearly constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

The alternative? That only those who have no commercial dealings foreign or domestic can hold high public office, let alone the presidency? Worse, that only professional politicians, preferably professional lawyer-politicians, best apply? Sadly, have not we as a nation already been approaching that state of affairs much to our detriment?

Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. Context and behavior ultimately determine the future course of behavior. Politics and governing are no exceptions.

If we, as a nation, trust Mr. Trump with the nuclear button, should we not trust him to conduct his commercial dealings honestly — dealings that fade into insignificance given the responsibilities of his office? If not, shall we not be consigning ourselves to a fatal combination of mediocrity and incompetence. These United States of America need more businessmen in government and fewer professional politicians, especially fewer lawyer-politicians. Only by establishing the proper context, can we attract the best and the brightest. Does not Mr. Trump now represent the test watched by those best and brightest?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PROMISES — EMPTY PROMISES 2?

November 28th, 2016

“All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” -Matthew 23:3

President-Elect Trump (aka/“The Donald”) promised much. To date, how closely do his deeds adhere to his words? To some, it appears that his rodomontade is devolving more than evolving. Consider the following examples:

As noted in the previous posting below, his appointments smack of a sprinkle of anti-Republican establishment here and a dash of pro-Republican establishment there.

If he has not reneged on his promise to pursue the investigation of Hillary with vigor, he has come close; characterizing her lying, philandering husband (who essentially sold military, technological secrets to the Chinese for a pittance) and “Crooked Hillary” herself as “good people” whom The Donald does not want to hurt.

Whereas he continues to claim that he will build the promised wall — maybe now partially fencing (Did the Great Wall of China contain fencing?) — he has retreated from his promise to deport all, not some but all, illegal aliens to deporting only those with histories of violent felonies.

Despite proclaiming his unwavering commitment to the sanctity of life of unborn children still in the womb, he has withdrawn any opposition to the sociologically-based, unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court to allow abortion essentially at any stage of gestation.

To the dismay of those who believe in the liturgy of Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism and of anyone who views homosexuality as a threat to the familial foundation of almost all civilizations, he condoned the biologically nonsensical and sociologically-based, unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court to allow homosexuals to marry legally.

Meanwhile, a most important policy wanders in the wilderness; this is, delivery of medical care — otherwise known by the governmental euphemism intentionally demeaning to physicians as “healthcare”. Medicare alone is bankrupting the nation. Any society that places the welfare of its old higher than that of its young dooms itself to disaster. The Donald is dooming this nation to economic disaster. So-called Health Savings Accounts are not an answer; they represent country-club Republicanism at its worst. So-called Block-Grants to the States only will shift political control from politicians in the District of Corruption to politicians in State-capitals. An affordable, scientifically-based, scientifically-directed alternative offering universal care from a competitive private sector — an alternative acknowledged by the insurance industry with nominations for two, national awards — has existed for more than 20-years, apparently to continue to be ignored by The Donald, who reportedly refrains from reading books, and by his administration.

Excerpt from the Prologue of the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences
“America has achieved peace with security. Her currency has become sound and stable; her economy, prosperous and dynamic. The federal government operates lawfully in accordance with the United States Constitution and fiscally without debt. Within expected limits, Americans control their own destiny — political, economic, and social.

Politicians seeking federal office generally say what they mean and mean what they say. The presidential, congressional, and judicial smoke-and-mirrors of the past, designed to blind the electorate, have dissipated.”

Detractors have characterized The Donald as thin-skinned with a longing to be loved. Be that characterization valid, expect him to do that which provokes the least disapproval and earns the most approval. Perhaps, he will prove his detractors wrong. Then again . . . .

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast; Man never is, but always To be Blest.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

PROMISES — EMPTY PROMISES?

November 14th, 2016

Note (21NOV2016): In keeping promises, President-Elect Trump considers himself a master of “the art of the deal”. To date, his appointments seem to reflect his image of himself. A little from here. A little from there. Conciliation all around, even to the point of settling lawsuits, of which he has had thousands. Sweetness and light, or so it might seem.

“All the proof of a pudding is in the eating.” -William Camden (1551-1623)

Time, however, will tell the real tale via behaviors and consequences not words. Making deals for the sake of publicity is one thing. Making progress for the Public Good of the nation is another.

Whatever he does, without basing his policies and programs upon Biobehavioral Science and the Scientific Method, Mr. Trump likely will fail as have all his recent predecessors. In financing higher education, for example, he could make a good start by following his words with actions — obligate colleges and universities that receive federal funds via loans to their students essentially to become co-signers on those loans. Consequence? Good-bye and good riddance to nonsensical degrees in ideologically fashionable “studies”.

So, we shall see. Question — if he fails, what?

“An error lurking in the roots of a system of thought does not become truth simply by being evolved.” -John Frederick Peifer

Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences One aspect of life, however, had been making Clifford Kent increasingly unhappy; governmental intervention into his life, the life of his family, and the lives of his friends and neighbors. As did his father, Cliff always had voted Republican. One election, he decided to stop voting.

“What’s the point?” he had asked Louise. “They’re all just the same. They promise one thing then do the opposite. The only real difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans are bigger hypocrites. What this country needs is what Barry Goldwater once said, ‘A choice not an echo.’ We need a meaningful third party, and I don’t mean the so-called Libertarians, who seem mainly confused and disorganized naysayers … if not anarchists … with a misleading name.”

Campaign
Candidate-Trump makes promises.

Election
Based upon his promises, Candidate Trump wins the presidency and sweeps with him into office a Republican majority in Congress.

Post-Election
Promises? Did Candidate Trump make promises?

Within days — nay, within hours — of claiming victory, President-Elect Trump began retreating from three, oft-repeated promises made by Candidate Trump. During those few hours, what had changed?

First promise? ObamaCare: Repeal and replace. Repeal means repeal not modify or evolve. Retaining coverage for preëxisting, medical conditions, for example, is a formula for financial disaster. It is tantamount to allowing an owner to purchase insurance for his home after it catches fire.

Second promise? Dodd-Frank: Repeal. Repeal means repeal not modify or evolve. Dodd-Frank’s legacy is a bowl of legal spaghetti that costs banks and their customers tens of billions of dollars in counter-productive expenses thrown at lawyers, accountants, “compliance-officers”, and governmental bureaucrats — money that, otherwise, could be put to productive use to benefit the nation.

Third promise? Mrs. Clinton: Investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute. Instead? President-Elect Trump’s flattering remarks about the Clintons and Obama. One might infer that they all suddenly became best of friends.

As Candidate Trump had been so eager to broadcast, the three of them are alleged criminals who violated laws and placed the security of this nation into real and serious jeopardy. Alright, it may be a wise tradition not to prosecute former Presidents but “Crooked Hillary” never was President and never will be. Now once elected, President-Elect Trump says that he does not want to “hurt” her. What say you, President-Elect Trump, about the harm “Crooked Hillary” did to this nation and the dead bodies that silently shout their testimonies to her actions?

A question arises about President-Elect Trump’s policy-related announcements. Why make any, at all? Obama still reigns in the Oval Office with his pen and his telephone, as he himself put it.

As for President-Elect Trump’s colleagues in the Congress, predictably obsequious, unctuous sycophants like Paul Ryan, Washingtonian establishment through and through, after vilifying Candidate Trump’s persona during the campaign now slither towards him, proclaiming previously unnoticed virtues. How victory changes context!

As for President-Elect Trump’s gratitude towards his supporters, during the campaign Sean Hannity of Fox News, perhaps the most vocal supporter of Candidate Trump in the mass-media during the campaign, had proclaimed after speaking via telephone three times the night of the election that President-Elect Trump would promote Paul Ryan’s demotion from Speaker of the House. Spoke too soon, Mr. Hannity?

Adding further insult, President-Elect Trump elected to give the prize of his first, “live”, televised interview to Leslie Stahl on CBS and billed by that network as such — a neo-liberally oriented network that vilified Candidate Trump throughout the campaign. Fox? Mr. Hannity? Later, maybe?

What say you now, Mr. Hannity? Are President-Elect Trump’s actions post-election his version of gratitude? To yourself, would you still characterize him as trustworthy?

[Note (15NOV2016): Last evening while justifiably castigating heavily biased Big Media of The Left, Mr. Hannity justifiably called upon President-Elect Trump to fulfill the promises of Candidate Trump in full. He warned that he will be monitoring President Trump’s actions and will hold President Trump to account publicly should the the latter pursue the well-worn path of empty, political promises unfulfilled.]

With regards to President-Elect Trump’s announcements of administrative appointments, he admitted on CBS to Miss Stahl that he intentionally is choosing Washingtonian “insiders” because they are the ones who know “the system”. This so-called system is that to which he referred as a “swamp”. Those he is appointing are creatures from the very swamp that he pledged to “drain”. In this entire nation of ours, are there no competent “outsiders” who really could and would drain the cesspool that comprises the District of Corruption?

So, what is the antecedent for President-Elect Trump’s apparent retreat? What is the antecedent for the so-called conciliatory behavior — such conciliation operationally meaning to turn his back on his supporters and renege on his promises to them in favor of seeking accommodation with their and his opponents and enemies; accommodation that they, being of The Left, never have given and never will give?

Oh yes, protesting in the streets by the usual puppets with the usual puppeteers like George Soros and his ilk pulling the strings. Recall the $33-million that Soros fronted to organize the riots in Ferguson, Missouri?

So, retreat in the name of “conciliation” and “unification” seems to be President-Elect Trump’s response after castigating the rioters then praising them. Expedient but not courageous.

President-Elect Trump claims that he wants to be President of all the people. Legally, he will be. Politically, he will not. Did Obama care about all the people in his rampage to destroy “White America” pursuant to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright’s, damning proclamations?

President-Elect Trump may fool himself about the election, but will he fool his supporters and opponents? The election was decided primarily along racial lines. The Euro-Caucasians voting for him likely represented the last gasp of an increasingly dispossessed and dwindling majority, a consequence of its prior, passive refusal to defend its own interests in terms of territory, resources, wealth, tradition, and biology.

For decades, its motto echoed the famous words of Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine — “What, me worry?”

Wait! Perhaps, we should not rush to judgement about President-Elect Trump. Perhaps, once in the Oval Office himself President Trump will remember Candidate Trump’s now-seemingly forgotten promises and remember those supporters who voted for him in response to his making those promises.

Then again, perhaps not. If not, John and Jane America, what to do?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.