Hollywood’s Beloved ‘Gender Rights’ Nonprofit Time’s Up Closes After Years Of Siding With Alleged Democrat Abusers

Hollywood’s Beloved ‘Gender Rights’ Nonprofit Time’s Up Closes After Years Of Siding With Alleged Democrat Abusers

After a dramatic launch at the 2018 Golden Globes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the so-called “gender rights” organization Time’s Up raked in over $22 million from many of Hollywood’s most prominent names such as Oprah Winfrey, Meryl Streep, Shonda Rhimes, and Reese Witherspoon. Just five years later, Time’s Up is now officially closing its doors after the group was revealed to be nothing more than another partisan operation that opted to protect Democrats from the very type of sexual assault and workplace inequality allegations they claimed to be fighting against. Unsurprisingly, the celebrities who enthusiastically backed the legal fund are radio silent.

“Time’s Up will formally cease its operations by the end of January and direct its remaining $1.7 million in funds to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund (TULDF),” The Hollywood Reporter reported this week.

Time’s Up first revealed its partisan bias during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign when former Senate staffer Tara Reade came forward accusing a married Sen. Biden of pushing her against a wall, kissing her, and forcibly penetrating her with his fingers under her skirt in 1993. Although the organization claimed Reade’s allegations should not “go ignored,” it was later discovered that its own public relations firm, SKDKnickerbocker, was headed by Anita Dunn, a top Biden campaign strategist.

Dunn was also reported to have previously given Weinstein “damage control advice.” The irony — that Time’s Up was created in response to the Weinstein allegations as an effort to stop and prosecute other predators — is lost on no one.

“I actually cried a little because I felt really betrayed,” Reade told Law & Crime at the time. “They never told me that their public relations was run by Anita Dunn. I found out in real-time reading Ryan [Grim]’s article.”

“From my perspective: the payments look like a way to silence me further from getting my story heard,” Reade said of the conflicting interests between SKDKnickerbocker and Biden’s campaign.

It wasn’t that they were staying out of politics. Time’s Up was of course proud to take bold stands against politicians such as Donald Trump and figures like Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, over whom it organized a “national walk-out” based on the thinnest of allegations.

But Time’s Up’s silence on Biden and other Democrats such as Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax would be small potatoes compared to revelations found in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ 2021 report that Time’s Up chief, Tina Tchen, and TULDF co-founder Roberta Kaplan were asked by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office for guidance on how to respond to sexual harassment allegations brought by a former Cuomo aide, Lindsey Boylan.

Kaplan resigned from the Time’s Up board after the AG’s investigation found that Kaplan gave input on a letter Cuomo’s office drafted to rebut Boylan’s allegations.

“[Cuomo aide Melissa] DeRosa reported back to the Governor that Ms. Kaplan and the head of Time’s Up thought the letter was okay with some changes, as did [Cuomo ally Steven] Cohen, but everyone else thought it was a bad idea,” the AG’s report reads.

Less than a month after the AG’s report came out in the fall of 2021, Time’s Up’s A-list advisory board quietly dissolved. Celebrity names on the 71-member board included Witherspoon, Jessica Chastain, Natalie Portman, Janelle Monae, Brie Larson, Tessa Thompson, Padma Lakshmi, Laura Dern, America Ferrera, Kerry Washington, Tarana Burke, Alyssa Milano, Gretchen Carlson, Amy Schumer, and Julianne Moore.

According to Variety, Time’s Up co-founder Nina Shaw wrote an email to the members instructing them, “There is no need for your individual resignations, as the group no longer exists.” Further, she explained that “The goal behind a quick dissolution of the GLB [Global Leadership Board] was to shield all of you from unfair scrutiny.”

In other words, no need for the public handwringing and apologies that would normally be necessary had the accused not belonged to the Democratic Party. You may go quietly into the night.

Time’s Up’s disgusting partisan leanings ultimately disparaged and put an end to their own cause. They got what they deserved, but what about Hollywood’s most vocal and prominent #MeToo defenders and fundraisers? Will there be any repercussions or mea culpas about how their money went to support alleged predators like Cuomo? No, of course not.


Source

Alec Baldwin Lost Any Credible Defense When He Violated The First Rule Of Gun Safety

News broke Thursday that prosecutors will charge actor Alec Baldwin with two counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting of “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42. In New Mexico where the incident occurred, each count carries a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison, but prosecutors have added a firearm enhancement that mandates five years behind bars.

It is hard to see how Baldwin couldn’t have been charged with at least involuntary manslaughter. The first rule of gun safety is you don’t point a gun a something unless you intend to shoot it. Even if you believe the gun is unloaded, you don’t point it directly at others.

Baldwin didn’t follow basic gun safety when he shot his cinematographer, Hutchins. Anyone who has been to a shooting range would have that drilled into them. And Baldwin, an actor for 40 years, who has been in many movies using guns, must surely have had this explained to him many times.

Indeed, the Actors Equity Association, the union to which Baldwin belongs, clearly states the rules for firearms use on its website:

“Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.”

“Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character.”

“Check the firearm every time you take possession of it.”

“Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.”

Baldwin’s repeated claim that he never pulled the gun trigger is not credible, as an FBI forensic report released in August concluded the firearm couldn’t have gone off unless someone pulled the trigger. But even if it were credible, it would be irrelevant anyway because he violated that first rule of gun safety. If he hadn’t pointed his gun at her, it wouldn’t have mattered if he had pulled the trigger.

Baldwin has made numerous attempts to protect himself from criminal charges by blaming others. For example, even if a staffer notified Baldwin that the gun was unloaded, the first rule of gun safety ultimately makes the accident Baldwin’s responsibility.

As Matt Hutchins, Halyna’s husband, told NBC’s Hoda Kotb in an interview, “The idea that the person holding the gun and causing it to discharge is not responsible is absurd.”

As the executive producer for “Rust,” and being on-site, Baldwin may also bear responsibility for two prior accidental gun discharges on the set. He was responsible for the crew. He hired a young novice armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, who doubted her competency. Presumably, this decision saved the production some money, but at the risk that something might go wrong.

There is no doubt Baldwin is genuinely sorry about this tragedy. Indeed, as news reports indicate, he was undoubtedly “inconsolable,” but that doesn’t help him either. If you drive a car recklessly and kill someone, you are still liable for negligent manslaughter. The fact that you deeply regret the accident is entirely irrelevant. If they had only observed the proper caution, to begin with, the death would have been avoidable.

For involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution has to show that Baldwin engaged in a lawful but dangerous act and did not act with due caution. A classic example of involuntary manslaughter would be someone shooting a gun into the air while in a crowded place, and a stray bullet accidentally killing a person. The person wasn’t even aiming the gun at someone, but they are still responsible. These actions are reckless, negligent, and criminal but lack intent. 

Baldwin had the ultimate responsibility for Hutchins’ death. He handled the gun and pointed it at her. As a result, he will likely go to jail for years.


Source

Christianity’s Extraordinary Impact on the World

Journalist Greg Sheridan’s magnum opus on Christianity is a comprehensive and incisive look at the world’s largest and arguably most influential religion, from Biblical times to modern-day Australia.

Christians: The Urgent Case for Jesus in Our World, by Greg Sheridan
(Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2021). Paperback: 384 pages. ISBN: 978-1760879099

ChristianityAt a time when believers are often afraid to poke their heads over the parapet, Greg Sheridan’s Christians: The Urgent Case for Jesus in Our World comes as a tonic for our faith. The Australian’s long-time foreign editor unashamedly proclaims his faith in the veracity of the New Testament and pays tribute to those in Australia and beyond who are living out Christ’s message to the world, often at risk to themselves.

This book follows his God is Good for You: A Defence of Christianity in Troubled Times (2018). Here he writes of his delight in rereading the Gospels over a year or two in search of the real Jesus, using words such as “compelling”, “dramatic” and “gripping” to describe these accounts of his life and those of his followers. He finds them “awe-inspiring” and is ecstatic at the “moral beauty of the Sermon on the Mount”; and of the whole enterprise he declares “what fun it was!”

The Messiah and His Mother

Sheridan begins the first section with the death of Jesus and the historical certainty of His existence, verifiable from several non-Christian sources. We meet the Jesus introduced in John’s Gospel, which is more theological than the synoptic other three with their narrative form, and are told of the dramatic effect of a particular passage on a (then) Buddhist named Kanishka Raffel, now dean of Sydney’s St Andrew’s Anglican Cathedral. As he puts it,

“I was drawn out of myself to the love of God and the love of neighbour.”

There is a chapter on Mary, whom Sheridan describes as “the most influential woman in human history, and the most loved”. She was the first to proclaim Jesus to the world, and the journalist in him refers to the detailed account of her part in the drama which we find in St Luke’s Gospel as a “scoop”, presumably reflecting what we infer was his subsequent access to her recollections.

Her role in Jesus’ adult life and those of other women in the Gospels are also recounted. He concludes with Mary’s response to the Archangel Gabriel: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word”. Sheridan reminds readers that his own daily prayers to the mother of Jesus are seeking her intercession — not invoking her as a deity.

Angels and Saints

Sheridan’s belief in angels is addressed in another chapter, which begins with the surprising news that 77 per cent of Americans and 40 per cent of Australians share it. He cites Jimmy Stewart’s 1946 Christmas classic, It’s a Wonderful Life, and the more recent films and TV series that feature this enduring belief, which for many is intuitive. Hollywood presents them as messengers and as helping human beings. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all depend on angels for much of their narrative, and theologians from St Thomas Aquinas to Billy Graham have written extensively on them.

The section concludes with a chapter on St Paul, whom Sheridan calls “Christ’s Lenin” and later the “Abraham Lincoln of the early Church”. He uses a plethora of adjectives to describe him, from intellectual and loving to difficult, demanding and blunt, all of which seem appropriate when you read his letters. Like the revolutionary, Paul built an “alien enclave” in a pagan world, while like Lincoln he was able to use powerful language to define a moral purpose.

Paul’s letters predate the Gospels, but expound Christ’s message without any departure from what he had received. Along with Peter, he never denied Judaism, but won the debate over whether Christians had also to observe the Old Testament Law, for which he substituted “Love your neighbour as you love yourself”.

To those who dispute Paul’s authorship of some of these letters, Sheridan argues that we can never be definitive on the issue. His most enduring legacy to a Christian world is his universalism:

“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

In the Modern World

The quirky chapter title, “Smuggling Christ into popular culture”, begins the second section. Skipping two millennia, Sheridan explores the lives and work of many living out their faith today, from film-makers to writers, politicians, church leaders and heroes in the social apostolate, and finally the courageous Christians in Communist China.

He describes it as pointless to lament the lost artistry of films and literature in the past 50 years, and points out that the God is Dead movement has been going for several hundred years, while the Christian strand is still strong, and booming outside of the West. Here we are destined to be a “big, lively and tenacious minority”.

Sheridan then spends the bulk of the chapter finding hope in some recent TV and network series and literary works such as those of Piers Paul Read and his pick for best Christian novel of the 21st century, Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead (winner of both the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and the National Book Critics Circle Award).

Our author then turns to “Christians who keep giving” with the introduction of three extraordinary women. Inspired to pursue a life of service and poverty, Gemma Sisia has left a comfortable life in Australia to provide primary and secondary education for 2,000 students in Tanzania over the past 20 years. The role of her faith in St Jude, patron saint of lost causes, and the prayer for his intercession in every problem she encounters make a fascinating story. Her actions reflect the concept that God is a verb rather than a noun.

His second subject is Frances Cantrall, whose Culture Project is based on an American model from which it takes the name. Her young team’s work involves engaging often cynical students and other young people at the level of their culture “to awaken their desires of what they were made for”.

Another is Jenny George, who after a brilliant academic career is CEO of Converge International, a successful business which provides well-being services, especially in mental health. Growing up Plymouth Brethren, she is now an Anglican and married to the vicar of St James’ Old Cathedral in Melbourne.

Faith and Politics

“Light and shadow, in the hearts of leaders” is a chapter devoted to allaying public cynicism about men in public life through the stories of four whom he knows well. It includes Scott Morrison’s religious journey, along with his wife Jenny, to now worship in a Pentecostal church. Of the role of faith in his life, Morrison tells Sheridan that he seeks inspiration from God in tough times and that prayer and the Bible are important to him.

Former Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson is a fifth-generation grazier, who has known tragedy in his life. He has founded a website on which he presents interviews with people whom he admires, such as John Howard, Kim Beazley and Jordan Peterson. They discuss culture, values, life and meaning, among other topics. At times Anderson has despaired of his faith, but professes Pascal’s wager that it is better and more rational to believe than not to believe.

Next is Peter Cosgrove, much admired military leader and former governor-general, who prays for his family, the nation and his beloved ADF, and is concerned at the state of religious belief in Australia. He recognises the attraction of tearing down institutions, but warns that if there are no substitutes we are adrift. Of the morality of soldiering, he believes that living in dignity means preserving freedoms.

Last comes another former governor-general, the late Bill Hayden, who, after a lifetime of professed atheism, fell in love with Christianity, realising that it is more than a religion of rules. He was a man of giant achievements, such as bringing in universal healthcare, and one who suffered political disappointments. He held no grudges, and had unpredictable friendships, such as that with Tony Abbott. Sheridan pronounces that in Bill Hayden “there was goodness, goodness and goodness”.

Courage Underground

There follow two chapters on Christianity in China, “The Great Wall of Heaven” and “If God is not Chinese, he’s not God”. We are told that there are between 70 and 100 million Christians in China, the majority being Protestant, and that their treatment varies from region to region. Sheridan has worked in China and includes interviews with anonymous Chinese Christians.

He distinguishes between the country’s beautiful traditional culture and the totalitarian ambition of the Chinese Communist Party to control every aspect of their people’s lives. After the persecutions during the Cultural Revolution, there was a huge expansion of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, but since 2016 the state has become more repressive under Xi Jinping. Many pastors such as Wang Yi and priests from unregistered churches, such as the underground Catholic Church, have been jailed, and party bosses have closed churches and ripped down or banned crosses from public display.

In a dialogue with George Yeo, “a superstar in the Singapore Government”, Sheridan explores the role of Christianity in Asia as an “eclectic creative mix of divergent cultural influences”. Yeo was chosen by Australia’s Cardinal George Pell to assist the Vatican commission on finance and administrative reform. He had been born Christian but lost his faith at university, yet regained it as a less ritualistic and more philosophical understanding of Christian love.

Yeo sees spirituality as a necessary complement to intelligence. Acknowledging the difficulty for Chinese to accept a foreign religion with imagery which does not look Chinese, still he is not pessimistic about the future of Christianity in the region. He claims to have a Chinese side of Confucianism and Taoism and a Christian side which believes in the divine quality of love.

Leading the Way

There is optimism in the final chapter, “New missions, new fire: Christian leaders”. Sheridan takes us to Sammy Rodriguez, Hollywood producer and pastor, and president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, a Pentecostal network of 42,000 churches. Without the institutional inheritance of hospitals, schools and other structures, Pentecostals are well set up to deal with contemporary institutions like Hollywood and social media. Rodriguez lashes the left on cultural issues but is strong on civil rights for immigrants. His well-made Christian films, with many Latino characters, attract a large audience, and as Sheridan remarks, it is hard to imagine a Catholic or Anglican bishop doing deals in Hollywood.

We are also introduced to an Anglican Church in London, Holy Trinity Brompton, where the Rev. Nicky Gumbel runs a hip musical service for a congregation as diverse in age as in ethnic origin. Sitting alongside the ever-popular Catholic Brompton Oratory, it engages modern culture without endorsing it, and Sheridan feels that these two strands of British Christianity are green shoots in a land where other religions are more successful in maintaining religious affiliation. For 30 years Gumbel has also run the Alpha Course, which around the world has been taken by more than 25 million people. He is not pessimistic about the future of Christianity in Britain, which, during the 18th century, also seemed in decline before the advent of Wesley and Wilberforce.

Sheridan’s final subjects are Melbourne Catholic Archbishop Peter Comensoli and the Salvation Army Secretary of Mission for Australia, Lt Colonel Dr Lyn Edge. Both are moral realists, intensely biblical and fired with the need to give meaning and purpose to people’s lives. The archbishop discusses the scandalous abuses, the brokenness of the church as an institution in the civic world, and the lonely life of the diocesan priest. He wants to find new avenues of evangelisation, rather than prop up “crumbling structures”; to change the training of priests; and to avoid “unhealthy clericalism”, yet retain their intellectual formation.

Introducing Lyn Edge, the author evokes the traditional picture of the Salvos, visiting their flock in the pubs and working with alcoholics. Fittingly, Edge is inspired especially by Matthew 25, where the acts of corporeal mercy are prescribed. She discusses the duality of the Salvation Army’s work, the here and now and the prospect of heaven, but insists that they are a religious community, and sums it up as not being either/or but both/and.

Noting the proportion of recovering alcoholics in earlier days, Sheridan likens their story to those of St Augustine and many of the original Cistercian monks. Perhaps surprisingly, Lyn Edge is devoted to written and formal prayers and has some reservations about the spontaneous prayer tradition of her own organisation, the Salvos, reminding us again that they are not just a welfare group blowing its own trumpet.

Greg SheridanGreg Sheridan’s lengthy outline of his case for Christianity avoids any discrimination among the various Christian denominations which he encounters. It is the numerous and vital ways in which his subjects live out their faith that he emphasises. Much of the authentic ring of his observations comes from his personal relationships with these extraordinary Christian soldiers, who exemplify the See/Judge/Act maxim of the social apostolate.

Thankfully, the book comes with a useful index and a bibliography to support the many publications which Sheridan sees as helping to smuggle Christ into popular culture. If I enjoyed Sheridan’s reflections in When We Were Young and Foolish (2015), I can honestly say that I feel uplifted after immersing myself in his latest contribution.

___

The above article originally appeared in the December 2022 edition of the Endeavour Forum, Inc. newsletter. Photo by RODNAE Productions.

Thank the Source

It must be true said the sheeple it was on the TV!

It must be true said the sheeple it was on the TV!

Jim Crenshaw – November 4th, 2022


The use of the green screen to spread the bullshit. Cure Covid by turning off your TV.
Source: Lateralus1 on 153news.net

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

Kanye West Shouldn’t Be Censored, But He’s Got Some Explaining To Do

Kanye West Shouldn’t Be Censored, But He’s Got Some Explaining To Do

Until now, my Jewish and conservative identities have co-existed in harmony. My non-Jewish conservative peers have been largely sympathetic to domestic and international Jewish vulnerabilities, and my Zionist colleagues largely sympathetic to right-of-center political views. But after Kanye’s appearance on Tucker Carlson last week, followed by a weekend of the controversial rapper being censored on multiple platforms for alleged antisemitic remarks, I am questioning whether my fellow travelers have their priorities right.

Carlson’s interview with Kanye was a fascinating portrait of a narcissistic, overly simplistic, and quasi-intelligible man, emotionally in heat and slightly out of tune with reality. It also revealed a man with some solid foundational instincts, creative ideas, and traditional values, admirably chest-pounding at the liberal mob and bitterly pushing back against wokeism and its variants.

Kanye is a split screen: both a bloviating cultural force with a bruised ego, and an attractive brand of anti-establishment revolutionary who bears the scars of leftist tyranny, his family having been destroyed by Hollywood. Although we should clearly not attribute wisdom to a man like Kanye, some on the political right have anointed him a spokesman and perhaps even future president.

This type of outreach is understandable. Conservatives are desperate for cultural representation and on the lookout for champions. Although Kanye is an elite iconoclast, allegedly the richest black man in the world, he has publicly betrayed his Hollywood class. One Twitter user noted, “Conservatives claim to hate Hollywood but fall all over themselves when a celebrity validates their views for them. It’s weird to watch.” 

From Carlson to Twitter

The day after Carlson’s interview aired, Kanye was censored on Instagram for antisemitism after sharing screenshots of a text conversation with rapper P. Diddy that included a cryptic reference to “Jewish people.” Kanye was also criticized for telling Carlson, with no evidence, that the Abraham Accords were merely a means for Jared Kushner to grow his fortune, an assertion some say invokes classic antisemitic tropes of money-hungry Jews.

Given Kanye’s disdain for the Kushners and inability to control his impulses, I preferred to give him the benefit of the doubt. But then, Kanye lashed out on Twitter, presumably in response to being censored on Instagram, pushing an antisemitic conspiracy theory of the Louis Farrakhan and Black Hebrew Israelite variety about black people being the real Jews. He also threatened to go “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE,” and insinuated Jews are to blame for cancel culture.

Immediately, Twitter locked Kanye’s account. Jews on right and left, as well as our liberal allies, were quick to express outrage. Rep. Richie Torres commented, “If you see yourself at war with Jewish people, then you are, by definition, antisemitic.” United Nations Watch director Hillel Neuer aptly noted “the last time someone went death con 3 on the Jews, six million of us were murdered.”

Multiple people pointed out the particular danger of Kanye spewing gutter antisemitism on an account with more than twice the number of followers as there are Jews in the entire world. Indeed, Kanye’s words triggered the Jew-hating Twitter scum to come out of their bunkers with despicable, unbearably pathological responses. Instead of acknowledging this, many conservatives (and even a few Jewish ones), came to Kanye’s rescue, defending his right to free speech as a victim of big tech censorship.

Kanye and Free Speech

Do I believe Kanye should have been kicked off social media for his comments? In short, no. Speech, even hate speech, is protected under the First Amendment, and I stand firmly against big tech’s draconian, politically motivated “misinformation” and “hate speech” policies.

I do draw the line at incitement to violence. Clear-cut threats should be grounds for removal. But did Kanye’s tweet really constitute a “threat”? For my fellow Jewish activists, there is no question that it did. They interpreted the “death con 3” portion of Kanye’s tweet to mean something along the lines of “I’m about to go punch a Jew.”

Given that hate crimes against Jews are up more than 400 percent in a single year in New York City alone, with the majority of perpetrators black Americans in vicious, unprovoked attacks, this is a highly valid interpretation. But this is a real ball of yarn, and some have noted that Kanye outlined no method of violence or attack strategy. Without yet knowing entirely where I lie, I tend to air on the side of allowing his hateful rhetoric to remain.

In no way am I making excuses for Kanye. In some ways, whether someone is an antisemite in intention or in effect makes no difference to me. But while there is no doubt that the content of Kanye’s tweet was antisemitic, labeling the man an antisemite is a different matter.

Is Kanye Really a Racist?

So, the question becomes, is Kanye truly an antisemite of the Black Hebrew Israelite or Nation of Islam creed? Or is he an insensitive loudmouth driven by reactive urges who imagines himself a courageous, contrarian martyr? After breaking from Hollywood’s leftist thought tyranny, only to be alienated and suppressed by the industry’s leaders (many of them Jewish, no doubt), has Kanye’s anger driven him to the edge of reason?

Kanye is not an analytic, intellectual type. He was exposed to discrimination from a young age, and he views the world emotionally in these racial, ethnic, and religious categories. Conditioned to use generalities about race, Kanye may have reacted to being censored by lashing out.

More has come out about Kanye’s views that suggest a deeper affection for Farrakhan and Black Hebrew Israelite ideology. Yet also Armin Rosen of Tablet Magazine did his due diligence and looked not just at Kanye’s present remarks but his past actions, which include praising Jewish life on various occasions, particularly his previous trips to Israel.

Kanye Has Some Questions to Publicly Answer

At this point in an unfolding drama, should the right shun Kanye West? Perhaps. At the very least, his feet should be held to the fire. Before conservatives embrace him, he must at the very least clarify whether he bears racial hatred towards Jews.

If this is the case, there is no justification for conservatives to give him a platform. But free-speech advocates have a one-track mind right now and can’t be bothered to hold two thoughts about Kanye at the same time. Their celebration of Kanye has no moral underpinning. It is purely pragmatic.

I too am infuriated by the left’s great delight in being able to scream, “See? Of course, he’s an antisemite! He’s a Trump-loving fanatic who went on Tucker Carlson and wore a “White Lives Matter” shirt!,” especially when we know if Kanye had used the word “Zionist” instead of “Jew,” his tweet would likely have been acceptable to the left. But this is not a reason to stoop to the left’s level by conflating multiple issues and ignoring Kanye’s ugly sides.

That’s what Daily Wire pundit Candace Owens did. In a gaslighting response to Kanye’s tweets, she declared the tweet “not antisemitic,” and attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jewish community.

Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro, one of America’s most prominent conservative Jews, condemned West’s antisemitism, but also praised his conservativism. With many calling for Shapiro to cut ties with Owens for defending Kanye, Shapiro refused on the grounds that The Daily Wire is an open platform for debate. But is antisemitism really a matter of disagreement, or is it a big, fat, glaring red line?

Antisemitism is a sickness that runs rampant throughout human history. Kanye can wax ecstatically about God being his only audience, but if he has any hatred towards the Jewish people, then we should not believe he has accepted Jesus in his heart.

Today, the primarily conservative fight is over free speech. But the right needs to realize that antisemitism is everyone’s fight because, as the saying goes, it may start with the Jews, but it never ends with us. It is far better for the conservative movement to lose a guy like Kanye than to lose its refusal to tolerate racial animosity.


Source

Olivia Wilde And Jason Sudeikis’s Break-Up Inspired Opposite Ideas About Gender Roles

Olivia Wilde And Jason Sudeikis’s Break-Up Inspired Opposite Ideas About Gender Roles

In 2020, after seven years of dating, Olivia Wilde and Jason Sudeikis broke up. They have two children together. At the time, they were both working on projects with protagonists in unhappy relationships. Sudeikis’s project was the endearing series “Ted Lasso,” which features him playing an optimistic, charming soccer coach. Wilde’s was “Don’t Worry Darling,” a heavy-handed feminist piece about a woman escaping a 1950s-style male-power fantasy simulation. In both cases, their art seems to be a form of therapy, but for Wilde, the drama of her life has overshadowed and undermined her artistic efforts.

Gossip plagued “Don’t Worry Darling” throughout its production. Shia LeBeouf was fired (or was he?). Wilde was served custody papers while on-stage promoting the movie. Wilde began dating the leading actor she hired to replace LeBeouf: Harry Styles. Florence Pugh, the lead actress, was upset that trailers reduced her role to sex scenes with Styles. Did Styles spit on Chris Pine? Oddly, the drama around the movie became a meta-commentary on the themes of the movie itself: gender roles, masculinity, and power.

Wilde called Jordan Peterson “a pseudo-intellectual” and “incel hero,” who inspired the film’s villain. Both these claims have rightly been discredited, but Wilde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Peterson’s appeal by claiming he “legitimizes” incels. Peterson explicitly warns against resentment and complacency. Rather, his teaching to young men could be summarized in 4 words: Grow the hell up! Peterson appeals to young men because he presents a positive vision for masculine aspiration, a preferable alternative to Wilde’s world, where men are either oppressors or betas. Harry Styles manages to ─ between his work on camera and on the press circuit ─ be both.

Wilde originally cast LeBeouf as the lead, but she claimed that he brought too much “combative energy” (something Peterson might argue is a positive masculine impulse wrongly discouraged). To replace LeBeouf, she chose Styles, the epitome of the effeminate man. He wears nail polish, flamboyant clothing, and does ridiculous photo shoots. His strength in the film, according to Wilde, is his passivity, his willingness to allow “the brilliant Florence Pugh to hold center stage.” On the press circuit, he appears lost, lurching between fillers and canned buzzwords. Quotes below are literal:

On the struggles of men today:

“I think in society in general; I think, uh, you know, it’s probably more obvious now and probably more talked about now, still not as much as it should be, but I think obviously, like, mental health around, uh, you know, for, for, I mean for everyone, but, you know, the kind of the suicide rates and stuff in males is higher, right?… I read, uh, ‘The Will To Change’ by Bell Hooks, which I thought was, like, the best kind of explanation of, like, the history of, um, kind of toxic masculinity and male rage and all of those things which I think reading that after doing the film there’s, like, a lot of, you know, kind of things that kind of correlate for sure.”

On progress since the 1950s:

“The themes of, um, the kind of, like, gender roles of the kind of time in which the film feels to be set and things are very kind of, uh, you know, it feels, like, very kind of traditional, uh, kind of misogynistic time. I think it’s incredibly relevant today, um, obviously everything that’s happening with kind of women having their rights over their own bodies taken away so it’s kind of, uh, you know, it’s a scary point to kind of realize how not, uh, kind of vintage that is, even if you’re looking at all of these vintage cars and vintage clothes and vintage architecture and stuff a lot of the themes are incredibly relevant now.”

On the movie’s strengths:

My favorite thing about the movie is, like, it feels like a, like a movie. It feels like a real, like, you know, go to the theater film movie that, you know, you you kind of, the reason why you go to watch something on the big screen.”

It may seem odd that Wilde, clearly a capable woman, would break up with the father of her children and partner of seven years and then choose to date a bimbo pop star 12 years her junior. While there’s something surreal about watching a 38-year-old mother of two become a Harry Styles groupie wearing ribald t-shirts, there’s a certain logic to her choice.

Men can be oppressors as they are in her film. These 1950s-era men are sloppily categorized as complete villains to be opposed at all costs. And then, there are the real-life men of 2022 who she dates and directs, fops like Chris Pine and Harry Styles. These men are so emasculated that they are, at best, fun diversions and otherwise irrelevant. Wilde’s advice to men seems to be: Shut the hell up. Judging from his interview, Styles is well-suited to such a calling.

Wilde’s ex, Jason Sudeikis, has created in “Ted Lasso” therapeutic art of a different sort. Like Wilde, his work features a protagonist in an unhappy marriage. The titular Lasso is cheerful and kind, but we learn his marriage is crumbling. His wife tells him she doesn’t love him anymore and wants a divorce. However, at this point, his piece diverges. In “Lasso,” Ted is heartbroken but tells his wife that she shouldn’t stay miserable for him.

We watch as he suffers mightily, turning to alcohol and then therapy to try to work through the pain of his divorce and estrangement from his children. He doesn’t conclude that the problem was the institution of marriage and stable families and that all women are evil. Instead, Sudeikis’s show treats the serious topics of marriage and family and responsibility to the next generation with the respect and nuance that they deserve. Wilde’s focus is on women’s fulfillment alone.

Ted Lasso is a cultural icon because he’s a rare TV character (and modern man) who’s wholesome and worthy of emulation. While his folksy Midwestern attitude is certainly not macho, he’s no pushover either. He endures withering criticism and rudeness with kindness, humility, and grace. He is a father figure to his players, and he calls them to excellence on the pitch through a positive and encouraging vision, not abuse and belittlement. He calls them to something greater than merely beta or oppressor.

“Don’t Worry Darling’s” failures are emblematic of the shortcomings of modern feminism: harsh criticism with no desirable alternative. Wilde’s life and movie present liberation that is neither instructive nor worthy of imitation.

Sudeikis has taken a different path. He’s made art that aims for a smile rather than a scream, optimism over pessimism, building up rather than tearing down. Sudeikis has emerged from the crucible with something to offer. Ironically, it is Wilde who is stuck in a fantasy.


Ben Christenson writes from Fairfax, VA with his family and 4 dogs.

Source

Olivia Wilde And Jason Sudeikis’s Break-Up Inspired Opposite Ideas About Gender Roles

Olivia Wilde And Jason Sudeikis’s Break-Up Inspired Opposite Ideas About Gender Roles

In 2020, after seven years of dating, Olivia Wilde and Jason Sudeikis broke up. They have two children together. At the time, they were both working on projects with protagonists in unhappy relationships. Sudeikis’s project was the endearing series “Ted Lasso,” which features him playing an optimistic, charming soccer coach. Wilde’s was “Don’t Worry Darling,” a heavy-handed feminist piece about a woman escaping a 1950s-style male-power fantasy simulation. In both cases, their art seems to be a form of therapy, but for Wilde, the drama of her life has overshadowed and undermined her artistic efforts.

Gossip plagued “Don’t Worry Darling” throughout its production. Shia LeBeouf was fired (or was he?). Wilde was served custody papers while on-stage promoting the movie. Wilde began dating the leading actor she hired to replace LeBeouf: Harry Styles. Florence Pugh, the lead actress, was upset that trailers reduced her role to sex scenes with Styles. Did Styles spit on Chris Pine? Oddly, the drama around the movie became a meta-commentary on the themes of the movie itself: gender roles, masculinity, and power.

Wilde called Jordan Peterson “a pseudo-intellectual” and “incel hero,” who inspired the film’s villain. Both these claims have rightly been discredited, but Wilde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Peterson’s appeal by claiming he “legitimizes” incels. Peterson explicitly warns against resentment and complacency. Rather, his teaching to young men could be summarized in 4 words: Grow the hell up! Peterson appeals to young men because he presents a positive vision for masculine aspiration, a preferable alternative to Wilde’s world, where men are either oppressors or betas. Harry Styles manages to ─ between his work on camera and on the press circuit ─ be both.

Wilde originally cast LeBeouf as the lead, but she claimed that he brought too much “combative energy” (something Peterson might argue is a positive masculine impulse wrongly discouraged). To replace LeBeouf, she chose Styles, the epitome of the effeminate man. He wears nail polish, flamboyant clothing, and does ridiculous photo shoots. His strength in the film, according to Wilde, is his passivity, his willingness to allow “the brilliant Florence Pugh to hold center stage.” On the press circuit, he appears lost, lurching between fillers and canned buzzwords. Quotes below are literal:

On the struggles of men today:

“I think in society in general; I think, uh, you know, it’s probably more obvious now and probably more talked about now, still not as much as it should be, but I think obviously, like, mental health around, uh, you know, for, for, I mean for everyone, but, you know, the kind of the suicide rates and stuff in males is higher, right?… I read, uh, ‘The Will To Change’ by Bell Hooks, which I thought was, like, the best kind of explanation of, like, the history of, um, kind of toxic masculinity and male rage and all of those things which I think reading that after doing the film there’s, like, a lot of, you know, kind of things that kind of correlate for sure.”

On progress since the 1950s:

“The themes of, um, the kind of, like, gender roles of the kind of time in which the film feels to be set and things are very kind of, uh, you know, it feels, like, very kind of traditional, uh, kind of misogynistic time. I think it’s incredibly relevant today, um, obviously everything that’s happening with kind of women having their rights over their own bodies taken away so it’s kind of, uh, you know, it’s a scary point to kind of realize how not, uh, kind of vintage that is, even if you’re looking at all of these vintage cars and vintage clothes and vintage architecture and stuff a lot of the themes are incredibly relevant now.”

On the movie’s strengths:

My favorite thing about the movie is, like, it feels like a, like a movie. It feels like a real, like, you know, go to the theater film movie that, you know, you you kind of, the reason why you go to watch something on the big screen.”

It may seem odd that Wilde, clearly a capable woman, would break up with the father of her children and partner of seven years and then choose to date a bimbo pop star 12 years her junior. While there’s something surreal about watching a 38-year-old mother of two become a Harry Styles groupie wearing ribald t-shirts, there’s a certain logic to her choice.

Men can be oppressors as they are in her film. These 1950s-era men are sloppily categorized as complete villains to be opposed at all costs. And then, there are the real-life men of 2022 who she dates and directs, fops like Chris Pine and Harry Styles. These men are so emasculated that they are, at best, fun diversions and otherwise irrelevant. Wilde’s advice to men seems to be: Shut the hell up. Judging from his interview, Styles is well-suited to such a calling.

Wilde’s ex, Jason Sudeikis, has created in “Ted Lasso” therapeutic art of a different sort. Like Wilde, his work features a protagonist in an unhappy marriage. The titular Lasso is cheerful and kind, but we learn his marriage is crumbling. His wife tells him she doesn’t love him anymore and wants a divorce. However, at this point, his piece diverges. In “Lasso,” Ted is heartbroken but tells his wife that she shouldn’t stay miserable for him.

We watch as he suffers mightily, turning to alcohol and then therapy to try to work through the pain of his divorce and estrangement from his children. He doesn’t conclude that the problem was the institution of marriage and stable families and that all women are evil. Instead, Sudeikis’s show treats the serious topics of marriage and family and responsibility to the next generation with the respect and nuance that they deserve. Wilde’s focus is on women’s fulfillment alone.

Ted Lasso is a cultural icon because he’s a rare TV character (and modern man) who’s wholesome and worthy of emulation. While his folksy Midwestern attitude is certainly not macho, he’s no pushover either. He endures withering criticism and rudeness with kindness, humility, and grace. He is a father figure to his players, and he calls them to excellence on the pitch through a positive and encouraging vision, not abuse and belittlement. He calls them to something greater than merely beta or oppressor.

“Don’t Worry Darling’s” failures are emblematic of the shortcomings of modern feminism: harsh criticism with no desirable alternative. Wilde’s life and movie present liberation that is neither instructive nor worthy of imitation.

Sudeikis has taken a different path. He’s made art that aims for a smile rather than a scream, optimism over pessimism, building up rather than tearing down. Sudeikis has emerged from the crucible with something to offer. Ironically, it is Wilde who is stuck in a fantasy.


Ben Christenson writes from Fairfax, VA with his family and 4 dogs.

Source

Rep. Matt Gaetz: ‘My Son Hunter’ Is ‘Compelling, Gripping Art’ and ‘Ammunition’ for ‘Culture War’

Rep. Matt Gaetz: ‘My Son Hunter’ Is ‘Compelling, Gripping Art’ and ‘Ammunition’ for ‘Culture War’

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) praised My Son Hunter as “compelling, gripping art” providing “ammunition” in the context of America’s culture war on Tuesday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.

Gaetz lamented what he said was an absence of dramatic films with right-wing themes. He said My Son Hunter, directed by Robert Davi and produced by the Unreported Story Society, begins filling this political void within culture and entertainment.

“I expected a documentary, and I don’t know why, but it seems as though the right has really embraced the documentary format, oftentimes to the exclusion of creating compelling, gripping art,” he said. “We are in a culture war, right now, and the ammunition in that culture war can’t simply be our words and our beliefs, we have to actually have pieces of culture that are gripping and that draw people and that compel people and move people and persuade people, and this was, I thought, a great example of that from Breitbart.”

Gaetz speculated that My Son Hunter may be a step towards creating a new ecosystem of entertainment separate from the status quo of leftist-dominated companies and industries.

He remarked, “I started thinking, as I was watching the movie, is this really the front-end of the wave to creating a new ecosystem where there is collaboration and real effort put into not just the right substance of the argument, but the right aesthetic, the right musical score?”

My Son Hunter may be an impetus for talented right-leaning artists to coordinate and create alternative content dissenting from political orthodoxies pushed by the largest entertainment companies, Gaetz considered.

“I mean — oh my gosh — the performance you guys got out of your lead was, I thought, really a showcase opportunity in the movie, and I hope it is,” he stated. “I really hope that this inspires other people who have a talent that you might not normally align with politics, but might be entertainment and movies, music, that people could think of ways to connect with one another.”

He continued, “Gen Z is the most socially interconnected generation in all of human history, and so we ought to use pieces like the My Son Hunter movie as a springboard to try to create those connections and really try to lower our shoulder in this culture war fully armed, and that’s what I think the movie does.”

Kris Connor/WireImage/mysonhunter.com

Gaetz credited My Son Hunter with not being overtly political, adding hope that the film would provide a model for more dissident films with broad appeal.

“So often, the stuff that we do in this space on the right has a very community theater feature to it, and and that was not this,” he shared. “This has got the blockbuster feeling, you know, a lot of people went out to watch Maverick, and what was unique about that is that there weren’t these cringe moments from the left. It was like it was almost uniquely kind of devoid of the barrage of politics that the left bakes into a lot of their blockbuster works.”

He concluded, “The unapologetic embrace of that from the right in My Son Hunter is something that that we need to see more of.”

Hunter Biden is the subject of a brand new narrative film, My Son Hunter, marking Breitbart’s expansion into film distribution. The film was directed by Robert Davi (GooniesLicense to KillDie Hard) and stars Laurence Fox (VictoriaInspector LewisThe Professor and The Madman) as Hunter Biden; Gina Carano (The MandalorianDeadpoolHeist) as a Secret Service agent; and John James (Dynasty) as Joe Biden. It was produced by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney (Gosnell movie, FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers) from the Unreported Story Society. The film is available RIGHT NOW for Streaming and Downloading at MySonHunter.com

The trailer below has been viewed almost 5 million times across social media.

Watch the trailer:

Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)