In this episode, Jay and I talk about Gen-X TV and how it shaped the world we entered into as adults.
“Our job as Americans…is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they’ve been sent to do their traitorous work.”
This quote represents the ongoing fight in America against the tyranny of a long held destructive philosophy. The man who spoke it chose his side against an evil that was corrupting minorities within the social fabric of our country. Defending against the threat, he laid his career on the line, sacrificed his public standing, and helped solidify American values in the public eye while also helping to corner and suppress the very people who threatened to destroy the values of American democracy that had been built on shaky and questionable individuals he sought to rid from the history books. We should all hail him as a true American hero who helped set the template by which our current culture is adhering in the current movement to root out racial inequalities in every aspect of our culture. Join me as I thank Mr. Joseph McCarthy, Junior Senator from Wisconsin.
The Atlantic published an article recently that documented the cases of three people who have been victims of the current surge in cancel culture. The argument of the piece is that we need to step back and pay attention to who we are destroying – yes DESTROYING – in this rush to rapidly cleanse our culture of racial inequalities. As I read that article, and several others over the past week, my mind couldn’t help but to wonder back to the Murrow v. McCarthy discussions from my American Lit classes. Specifically to the “black list” that the McCarthy era created, the lives destroyed, the never turning back.
“The loss of his job has left Cafferty shaken. A few days ago, he spoke with a mental-health counselor for the first time in his life. ‘A man can learn from making a mistake,’ he told me. ‘But what am I supposed to learn from this? It’s like I was struck by lightning.’
The man being quoted above was a hardworking, blue collar, politically unaffiliated man of mixed decent. The offense that led to the loss of his job was incorrectly giving the “OK” symbol. Caught on camera. By a complete stranger. Posted on Twitter. As Jonathan Pie noted in his most recent YouTube video, “this way into the incinerator, please.”
Over the past few weeks, I have grown very agitated at our culture. First at the arrogance of the policemen who were involved with George Floyd, then at the media for how they were blatantly skewing the coverage of the protests and riots, and now with the obscene nature of the cancel culture. The amount of anxiety this current wave of shaming people in public has created has gone too far. We are so arrogant in our political ideals in this country that we refuse to learn the lessons of the most atrocious moments of our past, and repeat them all the way down to the very means by which we destroy lives permanently without allowing ANY kind of forgiveness or mercy.
Ok, so you tore down a few statues, you ruined the lives of countless innocent people without looking into who these people are, you won a few primary victories in the northeast and Kentucky. You have successfully pressured the press into weeding out journalists that have questioned the very nature of this movement, you have successfully ruined individuals who presented well thought out responses with your own intellectual creeds, and you have finally brought the discussion of race to the forefront of the American discussion in ways that Dr. Martin Luther King could have never imagined.
Whether you want to admit it, your current movement is not purification of the culture. Your current movement is not democratic in the slightest. Your current movement is not for the everyman you claim will benefit the most.
However, it is, based on the simple patterns of where you are heading, mirroring the French Revolution, The Bolshevik revolution, the Cuban revolution, McCarthyism, Mao, the rise of Mussolini, and the rise of the third Reich. No, you do not share their ideologies, but you share their natures in rooting out that which you deem undesirable. Your carelessness in ruining the lives of innocent people with your MAC from the comfort of an IKEA chair is no different than Robespierre weeding out dissenters in Paris or Hitler weeding out communists in Germany or Stalin, or Mao, or etc…
You are no better. And the world that you are creating (separate from the one you wanted) will bear zero resemblance to the harmonic world you strive for. You are creating a zero tolerance state in the name of tolerance. You are creating a diverse nation void of any diversity. You are allowing your own ideology to create a definitive rule of law that promotes extreme exclusion without any kind of wavering from the narrative you deem acceptable. To put it simple: you are creating the very thing you are railing against, and you are thrusting us farther into that hole.
“These cases do not negate the good that can, and hopefully will, come from America’s newfound determination to root out racial injustice. Given the gravity of police misconduct in this country, there is little doubt in my mind that the overall thrust of the changes set in motion by the protests over the murder of George Floyd is highly positive. Nevertheless, it would be a big mistake—especially for those who deeply care about social justice—to dismiss the fate of people such as Cafferty, Shor, and Wadi as a minor detail or a necessary price for progress.
First, these incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose.
Second, such injustices are liable to provoke a political backlash. If a lot of Americans come to feel that those who supposedly oppose racism are willing to punish the innocent to look good in the public’s eyes, they could well grow cynical about the enterprise as a whole.
Third, those of us who want to build a better society should defend the innocent because movements willing to sacrifice justice in the pursuit of noble goals have, again and again, built societies characterized by pervasive injustice.
One of the core tenets of liberal democracy is that people should not be punished for accusations against them that are unsubstantiated, for actions that are perfectly reasonable, or for offenses that were committed by others. No matter how worthy the cause they invoke, you should not trust anyone who seeks to abandon these fundamental principles.” – Yascha Mounk
I plead with you now – stop it. Change can happen if given time and patience and, most importantly, diligence. Change of rapid succession based on Twitter posts and virtual mobs of iPhone users is NOT change. It is further complications in this world of all ready complicated relationships. Please, stop…
Count this as an observational history of the media from 1980 to today where we look at all of the influences that have contributed to the current media landscape.
Earlier this week, a rumor started circulating within all the major comic news outlets claiming that Michael Keaton has signed a multi-picture deal to reprise this roll of Batman, specifically the same Batman that appeared in 1989’s “Batman” and 1992’s “Batman Returns,” ignoring the 2 films made by the late director Joel Schumacher.
These rumors should be taken with a massive grain of salt, but just for fun, I’m going to go through the most common rumors. It originally broke that Michael Keaton was returning as Batman in the upcoming Flash solo movie staring Ezra Miller. This film is to be loosely based on “Flashpoint”, a story in which Barry Allen alters the DC timeline by saving his mother from dying, which causes the entire damn universe to fall apart. One of the larger changes made in the flashpoint timeline is that Thomas and Martha Wayne survive, and Bruce dies. The rumor states that alongside this, The Flash will also create a timeline in which Michael Keaton’s Batman has been protecting Gotham for the past thirty years.
The rumor also states that after the solo Flash movie, Michael Keaton would become the main line DCEU Batman, replacing Ben Affleck, and running alongside the upcoming Robert Pattinson lead trilogy. This is the part I believe the least, but I digress. The claim is that Michael Keaton has signed a similar deal to the deal Samuel L. Jackson’s MCU deal. He would appear in a limited capacity in several upcoming films.
All of this is meant to build to a Batman Beyond adaptation. I would love to see this, but I think an adaptation of the classic Frank Miller story “The Dark Knight Returns” would be much better. The main reason being, I don’t really think Michael Keaton is old enough for Batman Beyond. In Batman Beyond, Bruce Wayne can hardly even walk, while Michael Keaton still occasionally does action movies. In the future, a Batman Beyond adaptation would be amazing, but for now, in the shape Michael Keaton is in, I think trying to get a Dark Knight Returns film would be much better. It has been about the correct amount of time in between movies for the Dark Knight Returns, it just makes the most sense to me and I don’t understand why no one else is talking about this.
I highly doubt any of this is true, and I will until an official announcement is made. If one is, it will likely be made at the DC Fandome event in August. I would be very shocked, and very excited, if this turns out to be true. But for now, I’ll just treat it as any other rumor, probably a lie to get my hopes up because the internet is evil.
Special guest Dr. J sits down and discusses masculinity with me – what does masculinity mean for us today and where do we think it is headed?
So, I put masculinity off…again…because millennial activists brought down a statue of Thomas Jefferson and it led me to want to discuss it. So, here we are with the first of what will be many episodes on cancel culture and the now scary politics of the hard left.
So, I put masculinity off…again…because millennial activists brought down a statue of Thomas Jefferson and I decided we needed to address it. So, here we are with the first of what will be many episodes on cancel culture and the now scary politics of the hard left.
In this episode, Jay and I discuss the different movies that not only defined our generation, but also how they can still inform us today.
Over the past two weeks there has been a toxic bath of sludge brewing in the liberal left media. While cancel culture has been having a field day, pockets of the traditionally left media have taken time to examine how the establishment as a whole (liberal media establishment) has misreported, misidentified, covered up, ignored, and slowly begun to institute police state style pressure on journalists within their own ranks. One of these reporters who has called them out on it is a man by the name of Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone fame. His biggest critic in refuting his argument is one Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs. What this minor kerfuffle between the two men has shown is actually the exact thing that Taibbi has been arguing for a couple of years now: the liberal left leaning press has devolved into a he said / she said, my argument is right, yours is wrong so get on board or be exterminated ideologically, Hannity and Combs brand of hate filled ire towards anything that doesn’t support a larger hegemonic narrative the millennial “socialists” are trying to shovel.
Once upon a time, a Gen-X – Hunter S. Thompson loving reporter wrote an article called, “The American Press is Destroying Itself.” The article, published independently, got some liberal panties in a wad, and one of the loudest liberal Millennial voices responded with rhetorical tricks to denounce the author and his take on the current state of the liberal national media. What has occurred since the publication of both articles has been an inundation of largely hipster-light Millennial intellects crying foul over the Gen-Xer’s dared accusation that they play unfairly in the sandbox.
Taibbi’s article points criticism at the left for how they have recently handled themselves in the immediate response to George Floyd’s murder. At a point in our history where division is more obvious than ever, cultural latency in solving centuries old socially egregious actions have been forced to the forefront of our national conversation, and calls to unite us all in a shared experience to solve these issues, the political factions within our press have chosen to instead double down on their ideological stances and use them to separate out the dissenting voices within their respective caucus. Taibbi’s flashlight points to the liberal side of this shared narrative, and lists (like a rap sheet) different instances where cancel culture has taken some actions too far. There are issues with the examples he uses in that he does not go into full detail with all of them which is a typical ploy by any self-respecting journalist who is trying to sell an argument. The overall message that the examples used present, however, is that the larger left media machine is failing. The only way to defend this action by the liberal machine is to self-examine, find the cause of their failure, and adjust their practices accordingly. That’s called improvement.
Instead, the machine has done the opposite: they are doubling down and refusing to admit there is a serious problem with their politically correct view of the world and that the answer is not cancel, cancel, cancel. Nathan Robinson’s rebuttal to Mr. Taibbi is a wonderful lesson in how to passively cancel with a intellectually elite smile. Mr. Robinson dives into specifics of Mr. Taibbi’s argument to poke holes in the validity of claim, which is textbook debate – kudos. Mr. Robinson also examines the claims from Mr. Taibbi’s point of view before refuting them with linked evidence to back up his own claim. Well done, sir. Well done.
But where Mr. Robinson trips over his own words is how he subtly drops the “C” word – no, you dirty minded silly, not that word – by aligning Mr. Taibbi’s argument as a conservative argument. And there lies the spin and the exact proof of Mr. Taibbi’s own argument.
What Mr. Robinson focuses on is how Taibbi is presenting a conservative angle to his leveling of accusations against the left. Once he has done so, the reader will subliminally associate Mr. Taibbi with the right and in their Millennial minded victimhood, they will mark Mr. Taibbi as one of the “bad” ones who align themselves with Tucker Carlson and the KKK Nazi corporate capitalist scum of 5th Avenue and Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Robinson knows this, and that is why he does it. Twitter will do the rest of the work for him. How can you tell that he knows this? Because he notably leaves out Mr. Taibbi’s most liberal of credentials: Taibbi’s extensive work on the problem of Police brutality and his book I Can’t Breathe which investigates the Eric Garner murder. Which leads one to wonder: can a key stroke conservative be against police brutality, or do we just ignore Mr. Taibbi’s past contributions, or do we focus on one article and cancel him because he called the liberal establishment out, or…
In another article by Mr. Robinson, he responds to a rebuttal to his own work by Krystal Ball of the show Rising. Mrs. Ball too is a millennial liberal who is calling for the neo-liberals (I just can’t keep up with the labels any more) to cushion their stance against what she and her co-host Saagar call the “progressive-right.” Mr. Robinson, in this piece, does NOT paint Ball as a conservative as he does with Taibbi. Instead, he goes after the notion that serving the right with any kind of respect is outrageous, even if he will grant his precious time to “debating” them. By noting this, he again curves his audience away from the overall message that Ball and her co-host are trying to make by throwing in the fact that The Hill (who owns and broadcasts the show) is owned by a friend of Mr. Trump. Yes, that Trump.
Heaven help us.
He also goes after Mr. Saagar for pointing out that Tucker Carlson represents something that the press is ignoring – the same thing they ignore when it comes to Jordan Peterson – which is that Tucker Carlson has the #1 show on cable news right now. Yes, he is beating Maddow and Hannity. But instead of asking the obvious question of why the public is turning to Mr. Carlson, he just discredits Mr. Saagar by noting how Tucker is a racist. And scene.
This is exactly what Mr. Taibbi is arguing, and Mr. Robinson, in two different articles, proves him exactly right.
The left has a huge problem right now. That problem is that they refuse to recognize there is a problem. It’s like we are watching an alcoholic reaching the end of his drinking days. The left is going to hit bottom at some point, and when it does, it will have to ask itself if it needs to rehab or will it allow itself to die? I pointed to the generation gap between the two journalists – my point in doing that was to simply point out the wonderful visionary sight of the youthful Robinson vs the life experience of Mr. Taibbi. While Mr. Robinson is an excellent writer, what he is doing is playing with a fire he doesn’t fully understand yet. Mr. Taibbi, however, through his years and observations can see the obvious risks in this and is trying to keep an inferno from consuming all of the ideological wonders the left has always championed.
But to be honest, what Mr. Robinson really needs to do is to look at Tucker Carlson and ask the simple question: why are so many more people listening to him and not Nathan Robinson?
Beginning with The Matrix, the idea of the “Red Pill” has been appropriated by a range of movements from Men’s Rights Activists to the Alt Right to the extreme left to represent the idea of seeing beyond the “official” narrative. But what does it really mean to “red pill”? This episode tries to make some kind of sense of it from a Gen-X perspective.