My Dog Said He Ate Your Bagel For World Peace

Didn't I tell you "Once You Know They're NewAgers You've Got Everything They Think Pretty Much Figured Out"?

Well, The Village Voice's Nick Pinkerton has written a review of NewAger Julian Schnabel's new film (that I referenced in that earlier post) and - needless to say - it's about what I expected:

A U.N. premiere! A Vanessa Redgrave cameo! Zionist hoodlums! Distributors the Weinstein Company and director Julian Schnabel overcome their well-documented aversion to media attention to address the Israel-Palestine question, pleading peace, compromise, and the creation of a self-governing Palestinian state. While Jewish advocacy groups swarm to Schnabel’s bait, it bears noting that Miral is a very flat, fuddled movie, an at-odds-with-itself partisan work, its convictions diffused in a warm soak of style.

...Falling far short of the intuitive scene-to-scene storytelling the freewheeling camera implies, Miral is fussy checklist filmmaking, a scavenger hunt for the issues and representative characters that one simply must include in a panoramic survey of its subject.

...These are pictures of people we scarcely know, suffering under circumstances we barely understand, and only further obscured by travelogue impressionism. For closing catharsis, Schnabel imports some maudlin Tom Waits caterwauling—a sure sign that this is the mediation of a sentimental American Boomer countless fathoms out of his depth. Hasn’t Jerusalem suffered enough?

Screw Jerusalem, haven't we all?

Wasn't I just saying, earlier today, that it's time for the Baby Boomers, specifically, to exit the stage?

And what gave Harvey Weinstein the impression a director with a pet psychic had anything relevant to say about,...well, anything? Least of all, anything having to do with Israel? Julian Schnabel's steeped in Naziism NewAge! When it comes to Israel, he's A) not going to understand it B) not going to be able to explain it C) obviously going to get the film wrong, and D) going to come down against Israel. All four of those were givens!

It doesn't matter if Schnabel was born Jewish - was Harvey Weinstein high?

What-everrrrr. As long as the rest of you have learned that - if I tell you such-and-such a person/artist is a NewAger - you'd better take it as a warning. Not to avoid their work all together (though you might want to) but to know what you're probably getting yourself into:

A denunciation of all that's good, coupled with an elevation of (and/or a rationalization for) all that's bad. And usually created by a fragile mind that's so confused the artist, once engaged in the act of creation, will almost always think attempting to hide his/her confusion is ultimately more important than actually entertaining anyone.

The reason I don't say to avoid all NewAge spectacles is because, if you're lucky, they can be quite entertaining about trying to accomplish that deception - but, unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case with Julian Schnabel. And I never thought it would:

I mean, come on, who really expects good art from a guy who uses a pet psychic?!?

Scientology Disgracefully Claims Another Life

I said that, as the upgrade is going on, I wasn't going to post unless something worth mentioning happened. Well, word is now getting around that John Travolta's son, Jett, has died - at the age of 16.

Why is that important? Because it's been said for years that Travolta's son had autism, and Travolta's a Scientologist, and as we all learned through Tom Cruise's antics, Scientology morons have a *little* problem with any mental disorder not created by L. Ron Hubbard. John Travolta reportedly couldn't even admit his kid had autism. Who knows if he ever got him any help?

The fact that cults are allowed to flourish in society, and cultish thinking is allowed to go unchallenged, is a crime - a crime of epic proportions - and, as far as TMR's concerned, the death of Jett Travolta is further evidence of that fact. No matter how many of these unwarranted deaths stack up, no one does or says anything significant about the cause. (How sick and compliant to an idea do you have to be to sacrifice your own child?) This is why I say we are in a time of NewAge Nazis: normal people just don't think and behave like this.

The death of Jett Travolta - a kid most Americans didn't even have the pleasure to know existed - is another shameful chapter in cult and Scientology history. And society at large deserves to be damned for it, as well as John Travolta, and you can bet TMR will:

Damn you all to hell.

Come On, We Know This: You Can Lead A Teen To NewAge (But You Can't Make Them Think)

"When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.'

As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. 'A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.' 2. 'God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.' 3. 'The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.' 4. 'God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.' 5. 'Good people go to heaven when they die.'

That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and 'whatever.'

As a matter of fact, the researchers, whose report is summarized in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers by Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding. As Smith reports, 'To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it. Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions, or that their communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both.'

As the researchers explained, 'For most teens, nobody has to do anything in life, including anything to do with religion. 'Whatever' is just fine, if that's what a person wants.'

The casual 'whatever' that marks so much of the American moral and theological landscapes--adolescent and otherwise--is a substitute for serious and responsible thinking. More importantly, it is a verbal cover for an embrace of relativism."

-- R. Albert Mohler, Jr., who doesn't recognize a version of NewAge when he sees it, on The Christian Post.

In Cult Lingo: She's "Moved On"

"[Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley] said [Susan] Atkins, 60, was not a good candidate for compassionate release because she has 'failed to demonstrate genuine remorse and lacks insight and understanding of the gravity of her crimes.'"

-- Andrew Blankstein, on the former Charles Manson follower (and convicted murderer) with brain cancer, in the Los Angeles Times.

Now That's Just Poetic

"None of that stuff is based on any fact."

-- Jeff Borris, Barry Bonds' manager, on rumors the Red Sox, Mets, Diamondbacks and Rays, seriously considered signing steroids' poster boy, in the SFGate

Here Come The Judge(Ment)

The look of pure shock in his young eyes showed he had never before been shown the difference between right and wrong.

The boy of what — six? — in designer gear had just jumped out at me and shot at me at point blank range without warning or provocation as I walked down the street.

Admittedly, it was with a water pistol, so it was hardly life-threatening. But it was still a shock.

Call me a middle-aged Eeyore, but as the water soaked through my shirt and suit, I failed to see the funny side.

As he carried on squirting at me, I grabbed his water pistol and barked at him the difference between right and wrong — leaving him in no doubt which category into which I put unprovoked attacks on strangers.

He looked utterly aghast. What right did I have to speak to him like that? He had clearly done it before, and no one had answered back.

And I explained that while firing a water pistol at strangers might seem harmless, he had to learn boundaries. If he didn’t learn this was wrong, what next — throwing stones at strangers? And after that?

It was a trivial incident, but the underlying point is anything but. The little boy didn’t know what was acceptable because no one — neither his parents, teachers nor other adults — had told him.

If people don’t learn the difference between right and wrong, it is not just that they become anti-social. They don’t learn the fundamental lesson that there is only one person responsible for what they do — and that is themselves.

Nothing is wrong, and nothing is anyone’s fault; it is always someone else’s. Don’t blame me for what I do; it’s society’s fault.

This Left-wing moral neutrality comes from the best of intentions — wanting to sympathise with victims and other vulnerable people.

If they do something anti-social, it is because anti-social things have been done to them — they are not at fault.

And if you can’t judge someone for their actions, there can’t really be a right or wrong thing to do.

This is not just dubious intellectually, but seriously damaging for society.

There is one way to encourage the growth of anti- social behaviour, and that is to not to judge it, nor hold the perpetrators responsible for their actions.

You can have all the laws and punishments you like, but teaching people right from wrong and holding them accountable for what they do is far more effective.

And, indeed, the no-blame mentality is deeply patronising, saying in effect that people from deprived backgrounds are like animals who can make no conscious decision about their behaviour.

There is also nothing more disempowering for someone than teaching them they are victims, and by implication there is nothing they can do.

Telling young black boys that their underachievement at school is due to racist teachers is to tell them that it is not up to them to get ahead.

The rise of moral neutrality has coincided with the growth in the role of the state into every nook and cranny of life, further eroding personal responsibility.

The growth of the human rights movement — again, wellintentioned — has accelerated the trend. It has taught us that we all have rights unmatched by responsibilities.

A society where people know the difference between right and wrong, and take personal responsibility for their actions, is not just a healthier society; it is also a more fulfilling one.

Anthony Browne, pontificating about the implications of Conservative leader David Cameron's "risky" speech on "moral neutrality" (relativism) in Britain, for the Daily Mail

Camille, Doing THIS To Gay People Is "Evil"

"'The Iranian regime epitomizes evil,' you say. While we may rightly abhor and condemn the archconservative social policies of that regime, surely we should reserve extreme terms like "evil" for the genuine monsters of history, like Nero, Vlad the Impaler or Hitler. Calling every petty regional dictator 'evil' is ultimately counterproductive by coarsening our political discourse and dehumanizing our opponents."

-- Camille Paglia, being extremely relativist - as a way to defend herself against the charge of being a relativist - for Salon.com

NewAgers are just too much,...

Give The Kid An "A"

"'[Proof that President Bush told the truth about the war] doesn’t matter,' the young man, repeated. 'People don’t look at ‘the truth’ as ‘the truth’ anymore. There’s just what you believe, and how the other guy is wrong.'

'But that describes feelings, not truth,' I said.

'Right. Your feelings are your truth.'

'When did this happen?' I asked, 'because I didn’t get the memo.'

My son gave a wry laugh and piped in, 'around the time we couldn’t decide what the meaning of ‘is’ was!'”

-- Elizabeth Scalia, on the Democrat's culture of cynicism and relativism, for Pajamas Media.

Justice

Alright - maybe you assholes will stop romanticizing France after seeing this: look at the shitty cars, the weak populace, the fucked up industrial wasteland/gingerbread house decor, and the 1970's public housing. "France doesn't agree" with us? Who cares? They've got their own problems - including vicious racism and anti-semitism - and, so, are in no position to talk. (And when they do, they sound like they're about 5 fucking years old.) I'm saluting it, right now, with a $2.00 bottle of wine. That's about all the relativist bastards deserve.

I love this video: it's about time.