Culture Watch – The Compilation !




   It can be challenging: carrying a regular column about the popular culture – and relating it to our views on traditional living. Maybe a ground rule will help where we make an important differentiation. We are NOT at odds with individuals who happen to practice any type of ‘alternative’ lifestyles. But we ARE (severely) at odds with the people who are trying to orchestrate these ‘alternative’ lifestyles onto all the rest of us. This latest ‘orchestration’ effort involves a popular program that I have always liked: The American Idol.

   But first: there is a back story here. The American Idol show used to have it exactly right. It involved nothing, either pro or con, in regards to any lifestyle issues (or any other issues for that matter either). There was nothing either pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gay liberation or very much of any pro or anti at any significant issue. And this is what I believe in for the entertainment industry: it is their job to do “Let me entertain you” rather “Let me tell you (and your children) how they should think”. I favor entertainment just doing entertaining and staying out of the “tell you how to think” business.

   However … it turned out that the demographics of the American Idol show usually resulted in a straight/somewhat religious/All-American Boy or Girl type often being the winner. There was no one pushing anything one way or the other – it merely worked out this way on a somewhat regular basis. So … at some point, this became unacceptable to the Cultural Elite/Cultural Diversity types. Beginning at two seasons back from the present one, they pressured the shows’ producers into going down their Culturally Diverse rabbit hole with them.

   Obviously, the first thing that will happen is that one of the contestants will be set up to act as the official Gay Liberation Advocate for the season. Next, other types of performers were given the axe, not for a failure to perform, but for a failure to make a culturally diverse outcome. Up until then, every season had always had a fair mix of everything. And, for that matter, Clay Akins and Adam Lambert turned out to practice homosexual lifestyles – but it was strictly a private matter and was not an in-your-face advocacy effort on behalf of “THE CAUSE”.

   But not anymore. The new Culturally Diverse look began with a lesbian named Destiny for the second season back. Next, it was a Jeremiah Lloyd Harmon for last season – where his every single appearance revolved (exhaustively and one-dimensionally) around his homosexual lifestyle rather just having him perform.

   The shows’ judges were then pressured to boost these candidates as much as possible. And (maybe) were even pressured to reserve a ‘save’ for Harmon in the last season. And what about this season? When this season came around I was waiting to see if this was, indeed, a pattern – and it is. The most recent American Idol presentation just introduced the new Gay Liberation Advocate to be this season’s candidate for this task.

   But the Lord still controls all (and we still have some controlling ability also) so not to worry. Modern technology has the ability to do an Enhanced Block – one where you don’t have to block an entire show but merely the parts of it that go into the “tell you how to think” mode – while retaining the rest of the show to watch. It is not out yet but we still have what I would call a Manual Blocker.

   I always record my shows before watching them. I then use my “Fast Forward” button as my manual blocker – I just go through the “tell you how to think” parts without watching them. And for that reason – I just need some down time for diversion not to be told how to think.

   Now, I have no ill will against Destiny, Harmon or even the latest chosen delegate for the Gay Lobby. My “ill will” (such as it) is just against being told how to think by the entertainment industry. That is not their calling – and is the proper preserve for parents and parenting. Their “assistance” is not needed. What say you?


   A post-season update. It was the usual push and shove match where the producers, apparently, met some resistance. The judges allowed the Cultural Diversity cut to happen: only one of the All American Country Girl singers was allowed to go forward. But they refused to do it themselves – they forced another week to go by and had the country make the cut with a popular vote.

  They did the pro forma cut of the Kathy Lee Gifford-ish type of Gospel Girl singer that used to be allowed to go forward. But gave no explanation for it. Luke Bryan just got the maneuver out of the way as fast as possible – and with an obvious displeasure involved in his having to do so. But then there was the push back.

   The Designated Gay Advocate was ultimately cut, by the judges, rather than being allowed to go forward. And the show ended with a type of Revenge of Kathy Lee – the winner of the contest was, ultimately, a strong Gospel Girl type in her own right. And there was a twist: the ignominously cut Gospel Girl sang a Lauren Dagel song and then got the boot. But then Lauren Dagel was brought back, by the winner, to perform a song with her!

   However … the pressure lobbies may ultimately have prevailed through their rule-or-ruin tactics. The show, after the back and forth resistance, was then (chronically) truncated into nothingness. I, personally, got little entertainment value from the last couple of weeks – where the show was given a bum’s rush off of the air in as fast a way as possible. But that is to be expected.

   Don’t be confused about what is happening around you. It is not the type of topic we will discuss in this column very much but the lootings and the lockdowns are more of the same. It has nothing to do with your health or legitimate protest. It is a case in point like the Culture Wars – it is either rule or ruin. If they can’t run the country they will gladly ruin it in the hopes of, somehow, inheriting what’s left over out of the ashes.


   I will get back to the physical virus that is currently threatening us – and in the very next article that follows this one. I just feel that we still need to maintain our spiritual lives. And even if we should feel that our physical one is in danger.

   What follows is a good news/bad news story. It is also something that demonstrates my concept of a spiritual ‘virus’ and how they tend to work. I am referring to the final episode of The Bachelor.

   It featured a woman (Madison) who stood up for traditional values and, to give credit where credit is due, she was treated respectfully. However, there is the issue that she had to contend with. It is an issue that is not just bad news. But very, very bad news. For there is an issue with both The Bachelor and The Bachelorette that has to be made a point of.

   It is that these shows are promoting what is, ultimately, a glorified gang bang. (Multiple people are given the same key to an overnight ‘fantasy’ suite). And, what’s more, is that this is the process being used to decide a final cut for … who you want as your monogamous partner(?) – and for the rest of your life(?).

   Even apart from what is actually being normalized by these shows, isn’t it also rather contradictory? I am supposed to choose a life time monogamous relationship by going through a quick round of multiple sex partners – as a final cut type of a mechanism? Really?

   This is why these types of things work almost like a virus. If one would just stop, for even a minute, and do the basic logic of the matter – then what I am saying is obviously true. And yet, like it is somehow invisible, the obvious abnormalities that are involved in this show have gone totally mainstream and without even being spoken out against. Consider:

   Scenario #1: I am given a key to a room where I immediately have sexual relations with three different women – and one immediately after the other. Does anyone question that this is the proverbial gang bang?

   Scenario #2: Let’s say it is not an immediate swing through all three of the different women. Let’s say that between 9 pm and 10 pm I have a sexual dalliance with a woman #1. On the same night, after she leaves, it is between 10 pm and 11pm that I have a physical relationship with the second woman and the third one is done similarly between 11 pm and 12 pm. But does this really make the basic situation (of Scenario #1) somehow different?

   Scenario #3: I, again, go through all three women but do each one in turn on a different evening. So… in Scenario #1 I allow only, say, a minute between doing three different women and it is grotesquely amoral. In Scenario #2, I allowed one hour between the three different women so it becomes less immoral(?). And, since by Scenario #3 I am allowing 24 hours between each successive round, it is now in the realm of moral acceptability and is no longer a gang banging? (And what Bible verse does that come out of?)

   And, speaking of the Bible, there is no Bible banging involved here either – as can easily be demonstrated. If, that is, one would stop for even a minute to do the basic logic here. Let’s say that I am in a room full of married men who are all complete atheists.

   I then ask how many of them did a scheme similar to The Bachelor as a part of proposing to their then girlfriends. That is, that they got their then girl friends to agree to a ‘final cut’ arrangement involving two other women. And, this being done, as the prelude to their having gotten married.

   I maintain that, no matter how big a room full of atheists we might be talking about, that there would not be a single instance of this happening. Even in a room full of total atheists. Moreover, you could probably question each one of them and find out that 1) not only have they never done such a thing but that 2) atheists not withstanding, even the thought of doing such a thing has never even occurred to any of them in their entire lives. And this would be in a room full of atheists.

   Yet, we have all just spent several seasons (of watching exactly this on TV) and right before God and the whole world all looking on. And it is normalized and mainstreamed and is never even spoken out against. Very weird when you think about it. And that is just how these spiritual ‘viruses’ work – in a way that is very weird.


   This blurb especially needs me to do a reminder. There is what I call a differentiation: nuancing a point rather than getting involved in broad brush strokes. I remind the reader of one such nuancing I have done before: our concern is not that someone, somewhere is practicing a homosexual lifestyle in his own private life. It is the question of why do so many people (especially in the entertainment industry) have this hair up their posterior fixation to orchestrate it onto all of the rest of us?  

   And another differentiation here: forget that it is even about something sexual of any sort (and whether what they are saying is pro, con or indifferent) – why this fixation on influencing how every one else is supposed to think in regards to anything? People watch television in an attempt to have some down time in the privacy of their own homes – not so they can be told how to think.

   Whatever their particular agenda – or whatever pro or con positions that they may be taking – this entire effort is still obnoxious, disrespectful and inappropriate. Now we can get down to the particulars of this segment.

   Left strictly to nature, only 1 to 2 percent of the populous would be caught up in these types of life situations – the ‘alternative’ lifestyles, I mean. Yet in the latest TV lineup, you only have 1 to 2 percent of the shows that DON’T have homosexuality as a central focus. So what do you think the odds are that this is what we referred to above – just another round of the entertainment industry doing a tell-you-how-to-think exercise?

   And, I will put it bluntly about this particular exercise for this particular season. This is, and in an absolutely unbelievable way, the most dysfunctional season from the entertainment industry that they have ever done. I will give one example and then get the point of  “So what is the plan?” I refer you to the new offering “Council of Dads”.

   This was billed as the type of old school show that we all remember fondly. Wholesomeness, family emphasis and especially needed in today’s world, fatherhood. They even had a very powerfully done scene with a hard core type of father figure laying the law down to a rebellious teen. He even finished his dissertation with an enormously insightful observation that put the teen back down into the world of normalcy again. But the problem: why was there a need for a 4 year old cross dresser to be introduced?

   Exactly how did something like this need to be introduced into the plot line to develop things like, say, the driving-the-truck scene laid out above? First, they still had to do the obligatory gay character and you already start to feel that you have been bait and switched (again). Then, when you get near the end, they had a totally incoherent scene where a 4 year old cross dresser gets comingled in with a funeral, which then leads to a totally inane and indecipherable discussion about …… what??? 

   So … what’s our move? For the future, I want to re-introduce the idea of helpful technologies (and legislation) that will do nothing to violate anyone’s First Amendment. I have mentioned before that it is now easy for all programs to be encoded with filtering and ways to do multiple choice programming. That is, you can watch a version of a program that has the sensitive sexual themes and materials in it – or watch a version of a program that does not.

   People can still produce any kind of programming they want to produce, people can still watch any kind of programming that they want to watch. While this filtering process will still give you an ‘out’ so you can still watch programming that you might enjoy – without having to go along with this (a 4 year old cross dresser) type of a ride. But we still have to deal with the right here and right now.

   Our number one moral obligation, for right now, is to ensure that ABC, NBC and CBS have the most crapped-out runs, on their new shows, that they have ever had. Stop and think for a moment: they are pushing something as an old-school, fondly-remembered type of a show. And, yet, the best they can do (in this type of a promotion) is to have an obligatory gay character – and then throw in a 4 year old cross dresser to boot? Then what is the whole point?

   It is in our own self-interest to insure that, when people are this obnoxiously pushing something at us, that they have the absolute (pardon the term) crappiest season that has ever come their way. Such an outcome is simply in our own self interests.


   There was a true story about a 6-year-old girl who (presumably) was an aviation whiz. It was her parents who endlessly pushed this story. The news articles talked on and on about it until it came to an end. Specifically, a flaming wreck of an ending – one that killed both the girl and the responsible adult who should have been the one at the controls of the airplane they were in.

   What occurred was a very ‘modern’ type of parenting that is becoming all too frequent these days. A Munchausen-by-proxy I guess it is called. This is where you let your children (or even encourage them) to go off into a fantasy world – and be proud of your parenting for being so permissive. Except that it may ultimately end in a flaming wreck.

   Reality occurred when someone, who should have known better, allowed her to take the cockpit in a real airplane. She immediately wrecked the plane because she had absolutely no idea what she was doing. Nor should she have – she was just a 6-year-old girl!

   By analogy, this is so typical of ‘modern’ parenting and/or the modern world it makes one, proverbially, wanna holler. This is the one phenomenon that I regard as the most perverse about today’s world. We treat people who are supposed to be full grown adults just like they are little baby children. (But I do not WANT to have to make tough choices! I don’t like it! I don’t like it! – Poor Baby.)

   Then we take our citizens that really are just little baby children – and treat them like they are supposed to be full grown adults! We are leaving our children either to the control of third parties (who, like the little 6-year-old girl, was not being properly supervised by same) or being left to their own devices all together. We neglect them in some cases: young children having their own TVs in their own rooms, their own cell phones and internet access without supervision, etc. And, in other cases, we simply refuse to fight for them against outside forces even when we are aware of these forces.

   The most inexcusable case being what I would call the increasing normalization of pedophilia. And a seeming lack of resolve by a lot of people to even be contesting these matters. Below I am placing two links to two other articles (read them after you have finished reading this one):

My remarks to the king county library system 10-30-19

My remarks to the king county library system 12-18-19

   I have these two links up because they relate to my own personal fight in this battle. I will also use some material from these articles. But first I suppose I should define my terms. I am putting a warning out about pedophilia so … how would I define it?

   First, pedophilia does not have to involve an actual physical act – being personally conducted by someone who is a pedophile. Anyone who has an inordinate interest in sexualizing under-aged citizens is still a pedophile. And any under-aged person who winds up damaged by such a process is still a victim of pedophilia.

   This is important because this is rapidly becoming the ‘in’ thing now amongst the culturally elitist types. Underaged children are now the main front for being proselytizing into the various ‘enlightened’ (as they see it) new outlooks. But before I get into some actual examples, I will make a couple of warning notes for the reader:

   1) The practitioners of this new proselytizing effort will try to make rationalizations for their behavior. But they are distinctions that do not amount to any real differences. For example: their type of content is not being flashed on the internet to people with personal perverse proclivities. However, it is still winding up going out to the general public – but dressed up as advocacy on ‘issues. So, to them, that somehow makes it stop being pedophilia but simply an advocacy forum.

   2) The practitioners of this new proselytizing effort will try to confuse the issue with questions about motives. They will gladly concede that doing a sex act to an underaged person (or trying to make money from such people) is certainly pedophilia. But, to them, if I am simply involving underage children in some generally sexualized type of material (or pushing some generally sexualized behavior on them) it is not necessarily pedophilia. Because it could simply be a part of proselytizing them into more ‘enlightened’ views on sex acts. Therefore, as they will rationalize it, these other people might be perverts but not them.

   The actual reality? It does not matter what your motives are or what medium you use. If the acts that you are doing are pedophiliac acts, then you are still a pedophile.



   The first type of acts that concern me are that chronically underage citizens are being exposed to sensitive sexual materials and themes.

   Case 1) The King County Library System in Washington State.

   This is a case where chronically underaged citizens were exposed to men wearing women’s clothing. I noted, in a presentation to this library system, the mass confusion that exists in California (where 25% of all minors are describing themselves as being, in some way, gender confused).

   Now California has not only been what some would describe as a ‘progressive’ state but what I would describe as an obnoxiously ‘progressive’ state. When it comes to sexualizing one’s minors California has been going to it at full throttle and for an exceptionally long time. And what is the outcome – it is what I alluded to in my presentation.

    I asked, “So what causes a rare confusion (gender confusion) to become such a rampant one? It is not nature since, just left to nature, it would be rare rather than rampant. It is not choice since no one would choose to deliberately make themselves become confused – by choosing to have other people make them become that way. So, what does leave left?” (If not the rampant proselytizing?)

   The outcome, as previously noted, is that California’s minor children are horrifically destabilized. Nearly a quarter of their pre-teen citizens have no idea what their gender identity is and/or what to do about it even if they should figure it out. To allude back to a 6-year-old girl being given the pilot’s controls in an aircraft.

   You cannot simply throw out all possible sexual themes and materials (wholesale) to chronically underaged children. And then expect them to be able to field it and handle it properly. They are not meant to pilot their own way through this type of material – at that age – any more than they are meant to pilot an aircraft. Age appropriateness matters.

   So, what is the prevalence of this type of social manipulation among our children in America? It is chronic and is getting more chronic by the day and hour. It would be bad enough were it just one library system in one county in America – but is much more widespread than that.

      Case 2) Public School Systems throughout the country

   For decades, public school systems have sought to usurp parenting on this whole sex acts business. Propaganda books (designed to groom children’s acceptance of homosexual behavior) is often written at the second and third grade levels. This material has also been in circulation for many years.

   The State of Washington just attempted to make gender identity education mandatory for all students – starting at the 6-year old in Grade 1. And this is just the beginning. The organization is called the National Education Association. And you could say that its members have long since been ‘groomed’ – to support the grooming of chronically underage children regarding sensitive sexual themes and materials.

   Again, to those of you who have followed my writings, I take the moderate position of the two-fold test:

   1) If you ARE the biological parent (or legal guardian) of a child then: your number one responsibility is to be the one who is in charge of the sex acts business – and how your children are to deal with such matters or

   2) If you ARE NOT the biological parent (or legal guardian) then: your number one responsibility is to shut the hell up and to stay out of it. This is a quite simple, moral clarity-ish approach to take on this matter. I recommend that the National Education Association should start ‘grooming’ its members to adopt this standard rather than their current ones.

   The second type of acts that concern me are that chronically underage citizens are being involved in sensitive sexual materials and themes. No nitpicking needed here. This is cut and dried pedophilia regards of whether you do the specific sex acts to people in this category or not.

      Case 1) Tragically, about the most egregious case (and thus deserving a unique highlight) is one that was hosted by a Jenna Bush Hager. And done on her nationally syndicated morning show.

   A series of child molestation segments (which is what they actually were) called “Speaking Out Loud” were recently hosted by Jenna Bush Hager. They described small children (under 8 years of age) being aggressively sexualized into the new ‘fad’ thing of gender identity. And the interviewing was done favorably (by Jenna Bush Hager) towards the persons doing it.

      Case 2) Here I will go back to the TV program that I highlighted in the last Culture Watch segment. The object of the last Culture Watch segment was the new show “Council of Dads”.  

   So far, I have been in something of a nebulous area on some of the cases I have talked about. I do, and without apology, regard any type of sexualization of children as a form of pedophilia. And, by this standard, pedophilia is already a virtual norm in society now.

   The cultural elitist types have even made the chronically underaged crowd the focus of their proselytizing efforts. The numerous examples above are just a small sample of the widespread nature of this very unnatural phenomenon. But the new “Council of Dads” did take it to the next (even prosecutable) level – and while you watched it from your living rooms.

    A reminder from the last Culture Watch: The incident this segment is referring to is the 4-year child running around as a cross dresser. And there is only one way that you could have watched a 4-year-old cross dresser on your TV screens. It is from a producer enlisting an actual 4-year-old to play the part. (It was not, say, a 40-year-old done up to miraculously look 36 years younger).

   Secondly, since a 4-year-old cannot write scripts, they would have to have been directed into acting out some sexually sensitive and explicit scenes under someone else’s personal supervision. Next, the only way that you could have watched it is through them then airing it out to an audience.

   In short, you just witnessed a criminally prosecutable act of child abuse being done on your television screens. And have, apparently, not had it register yet – at what you have just watched. And, if you have followed my other columns, this is not the first time for this type of cognitive dissonance.


   I have always, and will continue to always, differentiate between private behavior and the orchestration of behavior, publicly, by the entertainment and education industries. They are two totally different issues. The one you deal with in Christ’s gentle way: you let the person know that you may disagree with their personal act but that you have no disagreement with them as a person.

   The other case (where someone is trying to orchestrate it on to the rest of society) you deal with in some of Christ’s more forceful ways: the use of a whip and the driving of unethical people out of your temples comes to mind. But this involves returning to a society of moral clarity – so that you can make these types of necessary distinctions. We do not currently have that type of moral clarity.

   That is why we keep being in these types of situations: the public is literally, physically watching various acts being done – right before their own two eyes on a television screen. But are still not able to let it register, psychologically, about what they are watching being done right before their own two eyes. We physically watched an ongoing, prosecutable act of child abuse while letting it just fly over our heads.

   In Culture Watch – II, I demonstrated that a major, popular TV show involves doing a gang bang – but, apart from this column here, it seems to be just flying over our heads. In Culture Watch – III, I laid out the Entertainment Industry’s most recent deliberate and intentional Indoctrination/Proselytizing/Tell-You-How-To-Think campaign. It also seems to be just flying over our heads. And look at the in-your-face blatant-ness of it:

   If you do not think that is what is going on, then how can there even be predictability? I noticed Edie Falco having a type of butchish look in the ads for “Tommy”. So, based on this TV season’s track record, I assumed (before even watching it) that she was going to be portrayed as a lesbian. And I was then proven right when I watched it.

   My wife and I recorded “Beauty and the Baker” to watch later. In the ads for it, it showed the main character having a brother and a sister.  So, based on this TV season’s track record, I assumed one of them was going to be portrayed as a homosexual character. (I was wrong – they BOTH were portrayed that way.)

   In all cases, in every new show for this TV season, they all revolve around homosexuality. And to the point, as I demonstrated above, of even being predictable. Thus, your television set is now engaged in a full throttle homosexual mode to deliberately and intentionally indoctrinate/proselytize/tell you how to think about sex acts.

   But how often are you even hearing anyone make any noise on these types of matters? You will hear about it here – but where else? That is the problem when you live in a society that is minus a sense of moral clarity. It is not just a case of anything goes but that EVERYTHING goes – and without even any protest.

   So … we can close out this Watch segment with one last brief return to the “Council of Dads”. Again, you – literally – watched a criminally prosecutable act of child abuse being acted out on your television screen in front of you. And how much protesting have you done about it since then? Do you get my point yet? This is what happens when you live in a society that is minus a sense of moral clarity.

   The proselytizing of chronically underaged minors, the whole utter perversion where we leave chronically underaged minors to fend for themselves in endeavors that are not even remotely age appropriate. While we (the – supposed – adults) want the government to take care of our every need so that we can be treated just like little baby children. I think we all need to get some clarity, folks.


(A good first act of clarity is to immediately remove “Council of Dads” from your viewing list. This country has a long way to go towards moral clarity – but that is at least a beginning.)



   Well, we have heard that a leader in favor of life, religious values and the traditional family unit is getting a divorce. If true: then we are not hypocrites. Getting a divorce is just as damaging to traditional families – and is just as unscriptural – as having a homosexual relationship or doing an abortion.

   Also, in my full length article, The Confused Generation, I blamed a lot of the current generation’s moral confusion on us (the older generations) inconsistent example and lack of moral leadership. I will not recant this conclusion now that someone in our own ranks is rumored to be seeking a divorce. My conclusion is accurate and I stand by it.

   Thus, if a Sean Hannity really is seeking a divorce, then I challenge him to stop doing so. Instead, he needs to do whatever it takes to preserve his family. And … to not be yet another case of the inconsistent moral leadership that is so responsible for this current generations’ moral confusion. I will continue in my own efforts to argue for traditional families, Scriptural living and the sanctity of all innocent human life – but I will not be inconsistent in how I go about doing it. When one of our own is in the wrong, they are still just as much in the wrong as anyone else.


   The purpose of this Culture Watch is to remedy an oversight by us in regards to an Ellen Degeneris. Her lesbian lifestyle is un-Biblical, it sells her own life potential short from what she could be getting out of it and we are, therefore, against it. But, as we did it in “Culture Watch V – We are not hypocrites!”, we do not play favorites. When one of our own acts un-Biblically, we still call it against one of our own. Similarly, when someone who we would normally disagree with does something very meritorious then we call it in their favor. That is the purpose of this Culture Watch VI segment.

   One of the best voices for the Golden Rule and to act kindly to all (whether you agree with them or not) has been Ellen. She has consistently stood her ground on this point and maintains good relationships with all types of people. It is amazing that this should be some type of a revolutionary act – but that is what is going on in our culture. Our political system says that all views are welcome while our popular culture says that you are entitled to gut hate (or even engage in lawless acts) against people who dast to disagree with you. Obviously contradictory; but that is the coarseness of our modern popular culture.

   So, even though her pro-Biblical attitude on this one matter should not be that revolutionary, it still is. We, therefore, now give her her ‘revolutionary’ kudos for her stance. We are sorry we have not done this sooner – she has been taking this stance for sometime.



Incident One: The Day That Many People Became Anti-Immigration. I cannot state the exact date, but I can state the exact type of incident and the approximate date. I was in the Tri-Cities area of Washington State during the early 80s. A sign had just been put up in both Spanish and English – and for the first time. And, at least in my area of the world, this was the first time, and the first date, for the starting of the Great Rift on the immigration debate.

Whether the perception was right, wrong or indifferent it was perceived that – for the first time – a group of people had come into the country for the purposes of NOT assimilating. For this is what the immigration debate is actually – and has always been – about: it is simply about assimilation. No one has ever had objections to any type of a person coming so long as they stick to the script: you can come here as anything BUT, once here, you become only an American and you are no longer anything else! You do not come here to NOT assimilate.

Incident Two: The Rise of the Self-Righteous Nit Pickers. Forgive me if I am aging myself but something from a long time ago: “Aye, aye, aye, aye (strum, strum, strum, strum, strum) … I am the Frito-Bandito (strum, strum)” so went a commercial sung to mariachi music. And, as far as anyone could tell, they were simply amusing commercials that sold products. Which was then pulled off the air for … being racially offensive. Now, I have no position on the merits of the matter one way or the other – and forget that for the moment. Instead, consider the old maxim about knowing where to pick your fights.

Suppose you are nit picking a fight over something that has no roots in racial prejudice, invokes no racial prejudice and is enjoyable to viewers (and of all races) without causing any problems to anyone? And I am certain beyond a certainty that not one single American became more ‘racist’ because of that commercial. So, why was it a smart way to do the picking of a fight? Do we really help ourselves if we are constantly a bunch of stuffed shirts just waiting around for a chance to get offended?

And while I, again, have no real interest in the matter (one way or the other) let’s fast forward to Confederate paraphernalia. To quote a frequently expressed point of view: “Were one to think of the Confederacy they could think of it as a strictly one-dimensional issue about the use of slaves (or they could not look at it that way?) Then, if one wanted to do the construing, they could construe anything connected to the Confederacy to be endorsing slaves. Therefore, I further construe that you have to expunge anything Confederate or you are a racist slave advocate.” (Or maybe it is just a little less of the construing that is in order?)

The problem is two-fold: it blurs the line between never forget and never forgive. There is, in fact, a way in which everyone should remember the Confederacy: The ancestors of the Slave holders need to learn the necessary lessons about what caused it – and the ancestors of the slaves need to learn the necessary forgiveness towards those who caused it. Both things are crucial – and both things are currently AWOL.

But secondly, and most important, is that a self-righteous nitpicker is simply never satisfied. I knew that we would wind up where we are today – and that being the Perfect Acquiescent Society would just lead to further excesses down the road. I would rather live in a country where a small part of the population has some type of an interest in the Old Confederacy – and that is then addressed through intelligent discussions. Than today’s country where everyone is required to hold the same views, no discussions are allowed, and you simply try to expunge things that you do not like. Thus, we come to the next incident.

Incident Three: The Intellectual Equivalent of the Book Burners. (And the end results of being the Perfect Acquiescent Society). I refer, of course, to the present situation of statue slayers, rioters and looters. Like their forerunners, the self-righteous nit pickers, this group has all the same traits of shallowness, being self-righteous and being judgmental.

1) The shallow mentality: everything from the past is garbage therefore destroy everything from the past. (And, being the lofty goal that it is, vigilante styled action is acceptable also.)

2) The self-righteousness: as though we are not all perfectly aware of the past – we are. But there might be some differences on the takeaway, that is, the question of where we go from here. Traditionally, if you do not understand why my takeaway about the past might be different than yours then we used to have something called a discussion. It is where you do something called talk (and, preferably, in a two-way manner) and where you do not do things called loot and burn.

3) The judgmentalism: My apologies but judgment belongs to God. We are only permitted to never forget – not to never forgive. I will neither judge you – nor will I permit myself to be judged by you. It is not going to happen. So, we finally get down to the topic of this article …

Incident Four: The Juneteenth (and Alternative National Holidays) Suggestions. First: A context issue. I have worked in the retail industry and am, therefore, aware of Cinco de Mayo (An Independence holiday relating to events in Mexico). A lot of celebration goes into it and it is clearly a fun occasion BUT no one has ever seriously put it forward as an equal footing to July the 4th (or even, as the BLMers do for ‘Juneteenth’, a replacement for it). So … in the spirit of taking my own advice (and not being a stuffed shirt waiting around to be offended by things) I see no real problems with it.

However, I do have real concerns about things like Kwanzaa and/or Juneteenth. This is getting into the area of different National Holidays for different racial groups – a ‘Don’t Touch’ area by my book. Look at Kwanzaa for a moment:

“Kwanzaa is an annual celebration of African American culture held from December 26 to January 1, culminating in gift-giving and a feast of faith, called Karamu Ya Imani. It was created by Maulana Karenga and first celebrated in 1966. (!) Kwanzaa has become more commercialized while observance of the holiday has waned.”

Perhaps, I am excessively blunt but when you look at the dates involved (and examine the creator – his name was actually a Ronald Everett) isn’t it, arguably, just a lot of faked up whatnot? No wonder you have the part about “has become more commercialized while observance of this holiday has waned.” (What holiday? Can someone just make something up out of the clear blue sky after giving themselves an Africanized surname??)

As to Juneteenth, it has somewhat more legitimacy. It does, for example, have a real history event behind it. The last slaves were freed on a June the 19th in 1865, thus, the ‘Juneteenth’ appellation. Also, there was a natural outpouring that you would expect to be associated with it for at least some time. However, after the passage of time, the predictable also happened again.

Most African Americans shifted to a forgiveness for the past and a looking to the future. Fixations on being enslaved waned considerably and the date fell into disuse. That is why, in my years in retail, I never witnessed any purchasing connected to either Kwanzaa or a ‘Juneteenth’. Thus, the desire for a revival has always tended to be as a political statement by political activists.

But now it is to total excess! Don’t even celebrate the 4th of July at all (because that is Whitey’s day of liberation – not ours?). Or put it on an equal footing as separate holidays? This is where I take my position of not only “No” but “Hell No!” And my reasoning is simple: just look at any other human relationship.

Let us say I tell my wife that I am going back to my pre-marital era and am pulling something out of it to be my main focus. That I am officializing our separate histories and perspectives and may even put them on an equal footing – or as a replacement – to some things we have previously shared together.

But what is wrong with that? After all, I do have a previous separate existence before I met my wife, don’t I? And I am not (necessarily) saying that I am going do this wholesale and, say, starting from right now am I? So, what is wrong with it?

What is wrong with it is that, unless you a total dumb bunny, you still know that it is a first step towards getting a divorce – all the intellectualizing and rationalizing notwithstanding. Thus, (and pardon my candor) but to H_ _ _ with Kwanzaa and/or Juneteenth. I know we are in the middle of a strained relationship right now with some African American citizens – but I am still not in favor of suing for a divorce.

And I conclude with the main point from the three prior incidents. Does anyone still really believe that a Perfect Acquiescent Society can pacify people with half measures? That if you will acquiesce just one more time, in one more small measure that everyone will finally love each other?

I don’t believe it. So not only am I opposed to the African American citizen suing for a divorce. I am just as opposed to any half measures (like separate National Holidays) that might be even so much as a one initial step that could lead towards it. There are some people who simply cannot be satisfied; so do not even try to!


   It has been a while since we have done a Culture Watch segment. Perhaps it is the election year and the tumultuous nature of 2020. But, as we have said before, if we lose our culture it makes no difference who we have for President.

   And, as I have repeatedly stressed before, the number one issue in our Culture Wars is not just the morality (or lack thereof) of what is being presented to us by our popular culture. It is the more fundamental question of “Why are they doing this type of presenting (of how our children should be doing their sex acts) in the first place?” And why do such Cultural Elitists feel it is their business to be doing this type of presenting in the first place? It is not.

   As I once put it in my work The Confused Generation, “And yet society is at a role reversal here.

   The universal prescription was to have an intact family dealing with the sex acts business while everyone else stayed out of it. Now, everyone and his kid brother is constantly engaging in the sex acts business with our children EXCEPT for there being an intact family to deal with it. Thus, it is time for both 1) the return of the traditional family unit AND 2) the exit of everyone else from the sex acts business. Or we will continue to have the Confused Generation as we have it today.” End Quote.

  But, unfortunately, and in a way that you would not expect it to happen, my criticism today is not aimed at the Cultural Elitists but at – incredibly – the Hallmark Channel. As we have said before, we are not hypocrites, we play no favorites and we simply call it the way it is. So, what is behind my reprimand of Hallmark (of all people!)

   It is their recent capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby. This is the blunt, unnuanced way to put it. But, as our regular readers know, we understand nuances and we do not broad-brush stroke everyone into the same category. We stand by our previous statements that we, in no wise, condemn people simply for practicing homosexuality.

   We merely believe, that just like a lot of the rest of us, they have an un-Biblical practice that is ongoing in their lives. And that like every one of the rests of us, you need to put these practices behind you when you do get involved in un-Biblical behavior. Thus, we have no worse criticism of people practicing homosexual behavior than of anyone else who has an un-Biblical practice in their lives. But what we do condemn, and vehemently so, are the people who keep trying to orchestrate this lifestyle onto all the rest of us. Or, to use the blunt terminology, the Homosexual Lobby.

  A second matter that concerns us (about this group) is the viciously non-tolerant strain of leftism in the country. And the most Stalinist of these are the people who have become the self-anointed “gay rights” advocates. In a previous Culture Watch segment, we chronicled the ‘tolerant’ crowd’s inability to just let The American Idol be The American Idol. This was our first Culture Watch segment of ours and it pretty much laid down our markers for what we really stand for. (For those with an interest in the matter the link is The Idol Wars.)

   But why has Hallmark done its apparent capitulation? (Specially: they have just done their fourth pro-homosexual movie in less than a month’s time. Why should someone tune into Hallmark to watch two homosexual males lip locking each other? People who watch Hallmark don’t do it to see things like that).

   I think that there are three possible factors for why The Hallmark Channel (at least for the moment) has capitulated to the ‘tolerant’ crowds. (That will knee you in the groins if you do not agree to every one of their ‘tolerant’ views).



   1) We have been aware, for some time, that the ‘tolerant’ crowds would make a move against the Hallmark Network for not playing ball with them. My fears increased when I heard how Lori Loughlin (a central part of Hallmark’s acting crew) wound up with legal problems. Our fear is that they may have taken advantage of Lori Laughlin’s legal problems to use it as a part of the pressure campaign. While I do not condone some of her behavior, it was a far stretch from being unlawful behavior, and I feel it was embellished beyond what she was truly guilty of doing. But why do I bring up the ‘tolerant’ crowds here?

   One reason is that we have been following, in this column specifically, the type of people who use their positions in power to do politically motivated prosecutions. The prosecutors that have been working the college admissions scandals fall in this category. While there was no grand conspiracy involving Lori Loughlin (and Hallmark whom she was a major actress for) once she came to their notice then we believe the following may have happened:

   They love a ‘big fish’ to fall into their nets. Also, because she has been prominent in the Wholesome Entertainment movement (which is now somehow a bad thing rather a good one) it was more of the same. Many federal prosecutors are rife with political motivations and political animus’s against other people in how they do their jobs.

  Next, the ‘tolerant’ crowd may well be using her situation as a warning shot over the bow to others. Essentially, if you do not play ball with them then you had better live a totally sinless life – or you could find yourselves in trouble. This is especially true because most of the prosecutions (not all but most) of the admissions scandal are based on a very nebulous legal theory.

   Namely, that if you are a rich person who gets special favors then that is, in and of itself, an act of grand larceny. With a wide-open legal theory like that in play, it leaves virtually no one safe and is certainly leaves a lot of room to do intimidation. Combine that with many federal prosecutors who also double as political hacks and it is a recipe for disaster. Once who have a wide open enough legal theory to use for prosecutions – and you have prosecutors who are more than happy to double as political hacks – then it is so much for the rule of law. Time does not permit a prolonged dissertation on this, but it is one of our concerns.

   To do a repeat of a prior point: I have always known that a move would be made against Hallmark (and others who have not played ball with the Homosexual Lobby and other PC movements). When I saw Loughlin’s problems being turned into a crusade, I became concerned that it might wind up as something to put the move against Hallmark (and others like them) into play. I do not know for sure how much of this has happened, but it concerns me.



   I do not think that a particular new development is a part of Hallmark’s recent behavior but there is a new development. Hallmark has developed economic ties with the Lifetime Channel which is not so fastidious about just giving people straight entertainment. Hopefully, Hallmark would not comprise its mission of just providing quality entertainment (and staying out of the indoctrination business) just over economic ties. I do not believe this to be the case, but Hallmark needs to be more forthcoming to its viewers as to why there has been a sudden change in their entertainment philosophy.



   Trump may wind up leaving the White House. And, normally, politics would not be so important but …

   The first thing that the homosexual rights movement has done (after Biden has started to look like the incoming President) is to press for what amounts to sheer blasphemy. Basically, they asked the (possibly) incoming people to decertify all parochial and private schools that do not play ball with their agenda. In short, that you can only be private or religious as they define it for you to properly be. This Stalinist type of politics would not be a problem with a Trump administration (or even with a Democrat one before now) but it is a (possible) problem now.

  There is an entire wing of the Justice Department that is (effectively) a criminal organization. It is the SDNY – the Southern District of New York. They deliberately engage in political prosecutions just for politics’ sake. It has now become something of a norm to criminalize political differences.

   And it has become increasingly easy to do this through their increasing use of novel legal theories to make things prosecutable. If you 1) make every possible act a human being can do become prosecutable through novel legal theories and then 2) prosecute only the people that annoy you then 3) you are now successfully the dictator of the world.

   People are already afraid to speak their minds from mob behavior becoming a new norm. Once political prosecutions become the new norm then everyone will have to tow the line of the latest political movement that is in charge. While, technically, you would still not be risking prosecution for simply resisting political correctness the actual reality would become much more intimidating.

   Suppose, for example, you get a real high profile for not conforming to these new norms. Then, just as a hypothetical, someone invents the latest new novel legal theory makes you prosecutable for picking up your newspaper without the proper attire on. And then, finally, you get a prosecutor who also doubles as a political flunky.

   Don’t you now have to add, say, being careful how you pick up your newspaper onto the list of things you now need to be doing? Or should you simply acquiesce to the PC crowd – so you will no longer be on someone’s target list?



    Now I do not know, precisely, why Hallmark has gotten sidetracked onto the wrong course. Its previous course was correct. They portrayed premarital sex in neither a good light nor in a bad one. They just stayed out of the matter altogether, just stuck to being an entertainer and left it up to the parents of the world to raise their children – and to be the ones to mold people’s values.

   Hallmark has not been involved with any hot button issues about your gun rights, abortions, Donald Trump and/or Barrack Obama, etc. And this is also correct. They have, traditionally, just stuck with being an entertainment company and stayed out of the “tell you how to think” business. And, in my opinion, rightly so.

   Similarly, Hallmark had never said anything – one way or the other – about homosexuality. They have never said, portrayed or insinuated that you should not do it. Nor had they ever, until now unfortunately, said, portrayed or insinuated that you should. This was, again, the correct entertainment philosophy.

   In Hallmark’s case it can be said, in a friendly way, to “Go back where you came from!” Because where they came from was right. And the way that they are going now is wrong.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *