One of the outstanding images of American Indian life is self-torture. A boy became a man by virtues of his ability to endure pain, without flinching. This insured his dependability in battle. He would not run away in fear of pain.
I gather that, when the old Spanish priests held up on a pole the figure of a tortured man, it had a natural appeal to any people acquainted with pain. It must have communicated on a Jungian plane, in an archetypal dimension.
Pain speaks to all of us.
But what it says depends on our ears. It depends on our understanding. A mother goes through pain to have the joy of a child. An athlete goes through pain to build strength. A father may inflict pain on a son to insure the son's safe and prosperous future.
No one inflicts pain on his God for the forgiveness of sin. "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Indeed. This is some exotic, profound, ancient Jewish fantasy. This is the most personal, psycholoigcally unique notion in the history of man. It is quintessentially Hebrew. It is the most advanced understanding of the Self.
I can only hope to approach it.
When I was young, I was told the story of Christ, of his willing endurance of pain, for the making right of all wrongs. For justice. For truth. For eternity. That story appealed to me. It over whelmed me. But I think I responded as an Indian. Christ was the Brave of braves. No man was ever braver. He asked for my acknowledgement. That I gave. Anything less, and I was no man at all. Anything but full commitment was being less than a man.
In the glory of worship, in the manliness of being a man, I suspect I have evaded my own sins. I cannot inflict pain on such a God. I cannot whip the Christ. I cannot hold in my hands the nails. I'm not man enough.
That's probably why I haven't gone to see the movie. I'm a believer.
And the high priest answerred and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou has said: neverthless I say unto you: Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Matthew 26:63,64
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1:7
Cinema has created many scenes from the Bible, from the opening of the Red Sea to the resurrection of Lazarus. Cinema has even created scenes of great cataclysm and global disaster. Fantastic scenes of alien invation have come to pass on the big screen. There has been no limit to the scope of cosmic significance. Hollywood can make anything happen.
So why has there never been a film about the return of Christ?
Never mind, Judgement Day, or GhostBusters, San Francisco, or Independence Day. What about a film depicting the appearance of Christ coming to earth, surrounded by hosts of heavenly angels, when "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" (I Thess. 4:16), when "the heaven departs as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island is moved out of their places" (Rev. 6: 14), and the human race cries out to the rocks, "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"
And what of the global resurrection of the dead?
What of the truth?
Is this beyond the pale of the great movie industry? Are such scenes impossible to depict? Or is there some theme in all this that the producers feel won't sell?
Over a century ago, a Christian leader noticed an aversion to this subject even among Christians. Dr. Adam Clarke wrote (of the resurrection), "there is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect." Commentary (on 1 Corinthians 15, third par.) Certain Christian themes appear to have less public appeal than others, given the social conditions of the times.
But why should that stop Hollywood? Wouldn't the end of the world, the appearing of Christ in the clouds of heaven, be the most exciting theme ever created on cinima?
Or would it speak to deep, profound, and latent capacities of the human soul that would bring such an experience that no one could recover, no one could return to work the next morning?
So blessings upon "The Passion." I can only hope it stimulates some inquiry in to eternal things. I can only hope people finally learn to "search the scriptures" for themselves. A movie leading people to believe in Christ, or at least feel they have some relationship of some kind, is one thing; a movie preparing people to believe in the end of the world, and the return of Jesus is quite another. To Mel Gibson, I suggest a sequal: "The Return."
Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30
Sound like a hit? Or, does the prophecy of global aversion kill the sales pitch?
"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16: 31
So much for the efficacy of the miraculous. End of lesson on the polemical value of a miracle.
What an indictment of the human condition. What a testimony of nature. Aversion, incredulity, and profound resentment, this is the heart. This is humanity. How we suffer for it!
We can't expect a movie to make anyone believe anything. It may create mighty feelings in those that already believe something. But the testimony of scripture is ominous: intelligent, educated human beings are capable of denying anything. Humanity spits in the face of God. It is our deepest reaction to reality. We've proven it over and over again.
"The Passion" may indeed represent a desparate attempt of our culture to say, "Lord, I believe; Help thou mine unbelief." (Mark 9:24) It may be the whole society crying out "with tears," just as the poor father cried, when he wanted his demoniac son healed.
So be it. Perhaps there is some kind of power in mass attendence, in mass participation. Perhaps there will be a significant social change as the result of the movie. Who would not pray that it is so?
All I can say is, there is no precedent. Modern history offers no example of such. The country we live in was created by men and women who had no form of entertainment save reading the scriptures. The greatest nation on the earth was built by a hand full of people who eschewed anything Roman, or Anglican. They resisted any semblence of ecclesiastical herding, and preferred being led by the Word. They preferred individual spirituality.
So what of "The Passion?" I'm fundamentally incredulous, but also truly hopeful. I hope it does what the story of Christ is meant to do for humanity.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.
The proof's in the pudding. We must look for spiritual, moral change in individual people. Without this evidence, religion is mockery, a hollow shell, an act, indeed. All human precedent indicates the latter.
Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion" may have effects which he did not anticipate, and some of them may not be so desirable. No, I do not speak of the Jewish concern about anti-Semitism. I speak about The growing phenomenon known as Christian "stigmatism."
A stigmata is a physical sign, on someone's body, of the wounds and bleeding associated with the suffering of Christ. The Catholics say, "The sufferings may be considered the essential part of visible stigmata; the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, sorrows, and for the same end--the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world."
It is an exclusively Catholic phenomenon, but it is also growing, and becoming more and more 'normalized' by virtue of its commonality. Stigmata is spontaneous manifestation of bloody wounds on a person's hands, feet, forehead and back - similar to the wounds of the crucified Jesus.
The person suffering the stigmata is given the role of Christ, vicariously. The psychological agonies concomitant are not pleasant, and the individual leads a life of pitiable agonies. It is psychologically similar to those who have had 'close encouters of the third kind,' (i.e., personal abductions by extraterrestrials). In fact, Georgio Bongiavani, a well known stigmatic, has lectured about the return visitation of the earth by extraterrestrials.
The social effect of "The Passion" might generate such phenomenon as to place it in the category of Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions (1841). Mackay noted "the madness of crowds" and "how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes." He uses the term "moral epidemics."
Of course, he did not class the Christian religion as a popular delusion, but there are elements within this religion's history which clearly involve mass hysteria and delusion. Religious fervor is prone to focus on phenomenon, as is any other fervor. Ideas are secondary.
Stigmatae are apparently real. People have them. People have been observed and carefully examined. The Catholic church is replete with them, and many other "miraculous" type phenomenon, such as relics, revelations, and even the sanctification of the host, "hoc est enim corpus meum" (this is My body).
It will not be surprizing if one of the unanticipated social effects of Gibson's "Passion" will be a profusion of stigmatae and stigmatics. We can only pity the poor sufferers of this cruel phenomenon. It is not a pleasant thing.
We mustn't forget the social effects of The Exorcist (1973). The psychological health of many people was adversely affected for a long time. The movie was extremely effective. Catholics supported the realities of that movie. And even the movie Stigmata was not so powerful as The Exorcist, although Stigmata did uniquely dramatized the adverse psychological effects of a stigmatic.
Let's just say that we can expect anything these days. We should be prepared. We should know, very clearly, what our own values are, lest we be herded into a false sense of faith and security, or lest we be hopelessly entangled in a psychological vice of some kind. American society is complex, supposedly literate and educated, revelling in the refulgence of science and political refinement. But no society has proven exempt from delusion. No society has demonstrated immunity from wrong ideas. Yet, at each point in history, each leading society feels itself on the cutting edge of knowledge, and always considers itself beyond the possibility of mass delusion.
The most intelligent thing to do is simply to beware.
THE WHITE ROSE
An Allegory
Cast:
Ohav
Zvira
Nadia
Villagers
Ohav (to villagers): I love Zvira. I have loved her all my life. I have given her all that I have. Every seaon that passes, I love her more. I learn more about her, I find more and more treasure in her. There is nothing like Zvira.
Villagers: How do you know? You must see Nadia! We all love her. Eternity drops from her beautiful lips. Everlasting joy is in her arms. Her hands give life. Everyone craves her. She is everything for all of us.
Ohav: Nay, but Zvira is all this to me. What could I not have?
Villagers: Ohav, you don't know what you don't have! Come and see. Come and see Nadia, the most rapturous, passionate woman in the world. Then you will know. And Nadia does not deny Zvira. You still have Zvira. You will have more. You will have what we have.
Nadia (in Ohav's dream): I am the woman of this world, of this time. You do not know love now. You only know love of long ago. Zvira is your history, in your mind. Zvira is really only your dream. I am the real woman for you. Now.
Zvira (to Ohav): This beautiful morning, my love, as always, I offer you all that I am. I am not more than myself. I am only me. But you have all of me. Today, have all of me. You alone can have all of me. Have all you can have.
Villagers: Ohav, please. You must have Nadia. We have seen Nadia. Why will you deny her? She calls you. She loves you. She has given herself to all of us. Why do you look away?
Ohav: Do you not know what I have? Have you not what I have? What is it that you want?
Will Gibson's "Passion" be something other than entertainment?
The Catholic church has used various forms of "entertaiment" and communication from the earliest days. It all seemed necessary for the instruction of the illiterate. But it soon became more than that. It became iconography, the use of images and symbols as sacred objects for adoration. It seemed to some like nothing other than Christian idolatry. There was once a great Iconoclastic Controversy (726-843 AD), during which time Byzantine Emperor Leo III actually ordered the destruction of all images of Christ, painting or sculpture. Later, Empress Theodora allowed iconography (843), but the whole history led to the final Schism of 1054. There was Rome, and there was Byzantium (Eastern Orthodox).
The Roman Church continued to develop the iconographic arts. And there were the great mystery plays of Medieval Europe. The church used 'theatre' or 'drama' as a communication medium. The churched later used the musical (oratorio), and the novel, and essentially all the major art forms available before Hollywood cinema.
It is not unusual therefore, or even unexpected, that cinema would be used in the same way, to communicate Christian thought to those unwilling or unable to spend time studying the scriptues for themselves.
So, apparently we must hope that Gibson's movie is accurate in its depiction of truth. Why, the very salvation of millions of souls will depend on it!
Of course, the Pope was "moved" by the movie, so, it's okay to be moved. And maybe people will be moved to start meditation on the scriptures. Maybe people will be encouraged to actually read the Bible? You think?
But then I can't explain why the Christian world is so feverishly hyped to see the movie. Don't they already know the story? Don't they read? Have they no vision of Christ within themselves? What are they going to get out of this movie that they don't already have, or already should have?
What exactly are they going to see?
Is this all about convenience? It's easier to see a movie than to read the Bible? It's easier to admire the obvious sincerety of Mel Gibson than it is to spend time study the scriptures?
Is seeing this movie some kind of penance? Is it a religious act, to go see it?
Let the "heathen" watch. Let the unbeliever see. That makes a lot more sense to me. Let the casual observer see the blood, the horror of Christ. Perhaps he can learn something about the love of God. This would be a triumph, indeed. I shall pray that it is so.
But right now, Christians are confusing me.
Somehow, we on this side of the Cross presume to be exempt from the errors of those who witnessed it. It does not occur to modern Christians that their approach to Christ might be as skewed as was that of some Jewish people at the time of Jesus (according to the New Testament).
John 6 contains a remarkable testimony about this. It sets the current of human feeling and desire against the spirituality of God. And yet it was positive feeling toward the man, Jesus! It was intensely positive desire. The people wanted Jesus to lead a regime change! They were focused. They were investing their cultural identity in Him. The crowd worked itself up to launch a coup d'etat' (6:15). That's believing, isn't it? That's following Christ, isn't it?
In 6:26, Jesus begins to tell them that they are completely fake, their motives are utterly selfish, and they in fact do not believe in God, Moses, or Him.
Then, when surrounded by this mob-like following who want Him as their revolutionary leader, when pressed by the people so eager to use Him, then Jesus tells them what He is really about: eternal life.
Then, when they are made to face the fact that the Christ they want is not the Christ standing before them, then (6:35,36), He invites them to believe in Him, as the One who alone can resurrect the dead unto eternal life. He alone holds the keys to eternity. This is all about the future, not any present regime change or cultural revolution. This is about eternity. He is the key.
This is what they are required to believe. This is their sole responsibility.
"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with Him." (6:66). They were disappointed. They wanted action now. They wanted better jobs, more benefits, more "loaves."
It is simply presumptuous to think that believing Christians, today, are not liable of the same error. In fact, it is rather anti-Semitic. To blame the Jews for rejecting Christ in this way is to assert superiority, as if Christians are not capable of the same error.
Whatever Mel Gibson's movie is, it will reveal much about people. I doubt, however, that it will reveal anything new. Are people any different today than in Christ's day? Are Jews any different from Gentiles?
The movie will be a wonderful portrayal of human emotion, as real as felt by those who wanted to crown Him king.
Think on these things, my friends.
I won't be watching Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion."
It doesn't matter whether the Christians like it, or the Jews don't. The Pope's opinion is virtually irrelevant.
Why? Spirituality is the most personal experience in the world. An individual's relationship to God is quintessentially private. If one is not able to establish such a relationship himself, one has not encountered God.
No, I don't condemn movies about Christ. I'm simply private about my emotions. I'm stingy with my affections. I certainly do not derive my impressions of the person of Christ from the media. I respect some pictorial art, but, cinema is not a source of Christian feeling or inspiration for me.
I think this is because it inevitably falls short of the mark, and therefore weakens, degrades, or even insults my vision of Christ. This has always been true in the past. Why should I think differently at this point? A Hollywood actor is going to offer insight that I don't have? Why should I think such a thing? I frankly think the opposite. He will have far, far less. And who cares what he thinks? How does he live?
Spiritual life does involve the imagination; impressions of the man Jesus do come from the human experience. But these are personal, to be created by me, within myself, not by another man.
It is similar to the matter of sexual emotion, as well. This is supposed to be the most intimate, personal affection between human beings. Instead, it is the most lucrative public business in the Western world. There is not one inch of the woman's body that is not a marketable item, with dozens of competing products pertaining to it. The romantic relation between a man and a woman is created and recreated, millions of times in media, as if no one knows what is supposed to happen, no one knows what to do, unless Mother Media teaches us all. Sex in film is standard public fare.
This is socially acceptable voyeurism. Nothing less. It is a cultural pathology. People are to get exciting by watching others in movies, or in pictures. This is the reality that Janet Jackson and Jason Timberlake played into during the SuperBowl.
There is to be no privacy anymore. The media rules it so. Privacy is considered a fluke, a quaint quirk of yesteryear.
In this modern social environment, someone hypes up a movie about Christ? As if some long awaited cultural orgasm of America is dependent on it? As if it's going to make any sort of difference whatever except in ticket sales? What kind of Christianity is this? This makes no sense at all. Are the churches so weak and ineffective that the people look for Christ in the theatre? Cielo mi guardi! Christ isn't authenticated unless He's made it in the media?
I just don't find Christ in the movies. Sorry.
Others may. Others, who have not spent a life studying the Bible may find great inspiration and encouragement of some kind through a movie. I hope so. I will not deny them the reality of this possibility.
Others, who obviously have spent a life in Christian devotion, may also find new impetus through watching a movie. I'll not deny this potential either.
As for me, when it comes to Christ, I just prefer my own imagination and emotion. I'll not be instructed by Hollywood. And when it comes to a woman, I prefer my own feelings, not watching others perform in front of the camera.
What a powerful word it is, "racism." Use it, and you've condmened the accused to perpetual anathema.
American entertainer Conan O'Brien was just cursed. And guess what? It didn't involve "blacks."
Canadian Leftist Alexa McDonough, a legislator for the left-leaning New Democrats, described the program as "racist filth" and "utterly vile" and demanded the government seek the return of the C$1 million subsidy spent on bringing O'Brien's show to Toronto. "There may be those who would say, 'Isn't this interfering with freedom of expression?' It's not interfering to say we will not publicly fund this kind of vile, vicious hatemongering," McDonough said.
The "racist" dog!
Cited in the Reuters article, in fact, is joke about the French speaking sector. So, it's white on white "racism." Now that's a new one. Maybe the Canadian Left wants to out-do the American conservatives about to sue over "black" Michael Jackson child molestation case. See, in America we're only conserned about sex, not race. We've transcended that. A "black" person can expose sexual organs to whomever, whenever, but, "black" has nothing to do with it. We're above any such "racist" thought. Why, race had absolutly, positively nothing to do with "black" Janet Jackson's episode with a "white" man at the SuperBowl halftime show. We're all just one happy family down here in America.
Well, Canada may one-up us on the matter of Leftist moral perfectionism and cosmic hypocracy. They're condemning impropriety with a sharper, razor's edge. It's white American humor, of an Irish comedian, (spoken through the mouth of a German dog, a Rotweiler) to the French in Canada. A masterpiece of cultural confrontation. Stunning to the teeth.
So, if it's white on white, how can it be called "racist?"
Because Leftists have no limites to their legally enforced definitions of words. They have come to own the power of words. That's really why the Right is as weak as it is. The Right has lost the power of words. The important words have all been usurped. Words mean what the Left wants them to mean, not what the words themselves mean. Throw out the dictionary.
The Left is a non-thinking entity, driven by passion, yet with deadly aim. The giant leech knows exactly where the cultural blood line is. The Left hits the bulls-eye every time.
In a world in which 43,000 women die each year from breast cancer, and one out of eight women in America are diagnosed with breast cancer, and there are 200,000 new diagnoses every year, I would think women would be a little more hesitant about flashing their body parts before a 100 million TV viewers. I would think a little more humility would be in order. Janet Jackson ought to think about this, as should hosts of other professional exhibitionists.
But don't think mastectomy as a Medieval form of punishment. Don't think removing body parts is ancient barbarism. Castration for male sex offenders is a growing debate in the United States today. It's not just some underdeveloped African government remedy. Castration, either literal or chemical, is serious punishment for serious crimes.
Exhibitionism, of the Jackson family tradition, is not violent, obviously. And professional amoralists tell us we're not to think of it as all that horrible. Those of us insisting or morality are to think of their exhibitionism as annoying at worst.
But just consider the number of horrible mastectomies which occur unnecessarily every year. It's one out of two cases. And look at the poor victims, if you dare. This seems indeed to be some bizzare barbarity of modern times. And this is chronic. Something is wrong somewhere.
Most of these women are innocent! They have committed no crime against themselves or humanity. Why are they made tragic? Why is the shameless "sinner" exhalted on the world's stage? The irony is unbearable.
In a media-driven society, with the intense level of self-esteem assigned to a woman's breasts, do female exhibitionists have no consideration for others of their gender? How can those who display their wares ignore the feelings of the unfortunate of their gender, much less ignore the high probablilty that they themselves will fall under the same judgement of nature? It seems the judgment is already set. This is all terribly ominous, is it not?
Would it not be morally safer to mourn the tragic, than to flaunt the fortunate? After all, isn't it the famous Liberal stance to glorify the victim rather than to congratulate the successful?
If Janet Jackson is intent on setting the pace, of being first to flash before the unsuspecting universe, then let her also be the first of her kind to publically fall on her knees and beg the forgiveness of the Almighty, and devote the rest of her life to helping those women in the world less 'empowered'. That would be a real "cutting edge" act, as powerful as the surgeons knife.
She would thus bring supreme honor to the race she has degraded, and who knows, it may be that she could obtain mercy for us all
In a most timely fashion, the "black" entertainment group called OUTKAST trumped all things American Indian. They took the Grammy award for Album of the Year, and displayed their true colors in an imitation American Indian show. (See Yahoo Slide Show: Grammy Awards)
Dressed in a vomitable shade of verdure, they performed their typical sex-oriented African undulations, in supreme contrast to the dignity and nobility of the people whose pitifully commericalized attire they displayed. How agonal for any Indian who cares!
So, where is the outrage from Indian Country? Not a word in the papers. Liberal Indian leaders, and white liberals, make lucrative careers out of protesting Indian mascots used by schools for their athletic teams, but it's okay for a foreign race to play Indian in an obviously degrading way at the Grammys. Okay for an American "minority" race, which apparently has no identity of its own, and is compelled to imitate others, to be professional Indian mascots.
Is it that American "black" people are allowed any form of racism known to man? Is it that "black" people are exempt from all that of which they accuse others? Is it that "black" people are to be allowed dominance over every one else?
Oh, are they "honoring" Indians? Would that be their defense if accused?
White Liberals have double standards. Jackie Goldberg finally got her little Assembly Bill passed in California, banning the use of "Redskins" from public elementary schools. What a grand gesture. Will Ms. Goldberg also protest the Negro's mockery of the Indian? Will she also ban them from "playing Indian?"
No, when it comes to political romance, everyone perfers "blacks." Indians are out. Indians are always on the bottom. I have pointed it out many times. This is why I detest racial coalitions. These are white liberal based organizations, designed for racial agitation, and they always want the unique validation of the Indian image, but they are anti-Indian. Most Negroes are anti-Indian. They feel they are better than Indians. They feel they are "white."
OUTKAST just proved that.
Japan has decided to ban all poultry imports from the United States. In an act of supreme cultural righteousness, with a vengeance, Japan has let the world know that America is not exempt from Turd World conditions.
Even cholera has made a comeback in America, among the unhygenic Mexican immigrant ghettos. Why, America just isn't so perfect after all. Why, we're just like the Turd World.
Everyone knows by now that 75% of all infectious deseases in the world are caused by the reckless management of human waste. The sewers of the world breed much of the ills of humanity, and heaven knows there are sewer problems in Asia. Most coastal regions have no treatment at all.
In fact, Japanese officials are well aware of this sewage connection to disease. Japan scientists have just been studying this, and demonstrating the facts again.
But the "Chicken flu" didn't begin in America. It started Thailand and Cambodia, in Southeast Asia, where sewage treatment is indeed underdeveloped if extant at all. China is desperate to get the flu under control before it spreads there. South Korea has been hit with the Asian bird flu as well.
Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, center left, helps to cook a five-spice egg stew in Bangkok Saturday, Feb. 7, 2004. Thaksin pleaded with his people to attend government-arrange free chicken feast as part of a campaign to show that Thai chickens, if well-cooked, are 100 percent safe. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)
And the American poultry flu, H7, is different from the current Asian bird flu H5N1 (which has already spread to Japan). H7 is not harmful to humans, according to Delaware Agriculture Secretary Michael Scuse. This fact the Japanese Agriculture Minister Yoshiyuki Kamei neglected to publicize.
I think Japan has played a nasty political trick here, and I'm disappointed. Maybe I shouldn't be. I do respect the valor and discipline of the Japanese race, yet, they have never earned the reputation of international integrity in modern times. Their remarkable cruelty before and during WWII has left a bad image before the world, and apparently some Japanese leaders still resent it, and are quite willing to try and smear the United States when possible.
Trade wars are often the expression of sublimated rancor and humiliation of a former age. Economic war is bloodless, but it certainly has its political effects. It's all about humiliating, denigrating, or embarrassing America. That's what Turd World government sponsored mass immigration to America is all about. "Send America your diseased, your poor, your problem people. Make America share the problems of the world." Is this non-violent terrorism,
or, the Turd World's biological warfare against the U.S.?
There are people in jail for a lot less than what Janet and Justin did during the Super Bowl halftime show.
It's called "indecent exposure," and all states have laws about it. Texas has plenty of them. Indecent exposure is a misdemeanor, unless children are involved, and then it's a felony. Millions of American children (under 17) were involved.
Jackson and Timberlake should therefore be charge with a mass felony, and immediately convicted, and fined, and sentenced to appropriate jail time. The penalty should be in accordance with the number of people affected. Now, is it only the people in the Houston stadium that saw it, or also all the people of the state of Texas, or all the people in the United States and in the world who saw it on TV? Well, this is clearly beyond calculation.
However, the immeasurableness of the crime should not mean that it is ameliorated by the quantitative inconvenience. The act was committed, children were involved. It is a felony, plain and simple, with millions of witnesses.
I call for a class action suite against Jackson and Timberlake, and swift retribution.
Now, if none of this happens, then we can only expect more and more "indecent exposure" of all kinds. Texas is "alert" to the whole sex industry, and bringing a case against Jackson and Timberlake should not be considered out of line, but first in line. Check out Texas law, then check out the laws of every state which broadcast the Super Bowl. Don't let them hide behind "entertainment" or "free speech." The Super Bowl incident is an onslaught of our national security, as vile and threatening as Islamic terrorism.
Write the Texas Attorney General and demand action. Cite specifically the Texas Penal Code Section 21.07 (Public Lewdness) and Section 21.08 (Indecent Exposure). And even include Section 21.11 (Indecency with a child) and Section 21.15 (Improper photography or visual recording.) If the Attorney General of Texas does not act or file charges, then any attorney will be more than happy to file a class action suit on behalf of a group of individuals.
Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott
This is not a matter of "apologizing." Everyone can apologize ad nauseum, but the crime was committed. The Clintonian Apology is more insulting than the act. Why? It is uttely deceptive, and "rapes" the conscience, and usurps the true meaning of the words remorse, repentence, and being truly sorry. The only healing element in this matter is conviction and penalty.
Americans must begin to see some simple, basic justice again. We need to "recover" from the Clinton legacy of lawlessness. The Clintons demonstrated that the highest office of the country was immune to justice. The Clintons proved that Congress was impotent, and all that it took was nerve--nerve to do wrong, and they could master the power handles of the nation. The only answer to this is justice, and conviction.
Let's begin with the Super Bowl.
Around white societies, some "black" people apparently have doubts about their sexual desirability. They still feel unaccepted, and unwanted, so in the name of "equality," they're determined to assert their bodies as sexually desirable. They want to force themselves in everyone's face, like it or not.
That's what Janet Jackson's recent episode at the Super Bowl was all about. She broadcast her private body part in the most dramatic way, in the world's face. Moreover, it was a white man, Justin Timberlake, that played the part of desiring her "black" body. Therefore, the message was loud and clear. "See?! Everyone wants my body! Especially the white man! I just proved it!"
These certain "black" people apparently want to dominate society through their sexuality, and with the right contacts, like the media, and the law, they may succeed. White society is literally being forced to accept the "black" body as equally sexually desirable. Any natural, psychologically negative associations with darkness, any Freudian sexual aversion, and any sense of uncleanness, must be over come by studied, determined, political effort. America is being told what is sexually attractive. America's sexual emotions are being dictated, through the media and the legal system, no less.
Janet Jackson's defense will be equality. Her mission is to make "blackness" desirable. This is the latest version of "Black is Beautiful." America will accept this, America will demonstrate it loves "blackness," or else.
It was ingenious, really. Jackson has triumphed. Whatever else is said henceforth, by her, or by anyone else, she did it. The act was already committed. Nothing can change it. Will it have the desired effect? That's another matter.
Everyone knows about the high number of crimes committed by "blacks" against whites. With the advent of "Civil Rights," the number of "black" rapes of whites soard. It's "black" men who desire white women, or just non-"black" women.
So this is Janet Jackson's response. "Hey! Everybody look! White men want me!" Racial equality, gender equality, economic opportunity, how can she lose? Her case is more certain than that of Koby Bryant, the "black" pro-athlete accused of raping a white teenage girl. Jackson raped the whole country! Liberals will hail her as a heroine, an unprecedented achiever of social architecture. She will quell the tide of "black" hatred for whites, by demonstrating that whites want blacks sexually. Case neutralized. (Sexual morality not an issue.) A spectacular achievement.
Indeed, it wasn't just Janet Jackson who accomplished this, but very powerful forces behind her. For this, we should all fear. Janet was just the willing slave.
Whether in child molestation or indecent exposure, the Jackson family rules the image in pop culture media. Yesterday's display (by Janet Jackson) of grotesque shamelessness at the SuperBowl, of absolute heathenish idolatry of femal sex organs at the most publicized of all American public events, only shows how far down the scale of indecency the movers and shakers have gone. They figured the public wanted it, did they?
The SuperBowl halftime show was produced by MTV, and sponsored by AOL. The hype was incredible. The executive producers of the show were Dave Sirulnick and Salli Frattini. Alex Coletti was the producer and Beth McCarthy-Miller directed.
After the Jackson display, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue made an official apology, and promises never to have anything like it happen again. The FCC has already launched an investigation of who's responsible for what.
So, was it a mistake? How could it be? Janet Jackson is a top-famed MTV star, and notorious as Michael for marketing 'sex act' suggestions. How can the officials say they didn't know who they were getting, or what they were getting? Jackson (and Timberlake) represent the pith of impropriety in the music business. Hiring MTV itself was opening the door and asking for the worst.
Now it isn't necessary to attribute intense anal-oral fixation to the race of Janet Jackson, nor amoral avarice to the race of the producers. This behavior speaks eloquently for itself. Suffice to note that sex-sellers tend to be syndicate-oriented. They've created their own kind of sex slaves.
However, that these vices should become halftime entertainment at the SuperBowl bespeaks the social irresponsibility in the NFL. Of course, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders set a rather explicitely profligate example beginning in 1972. Auxillary pro-football entertainment has gone downhill ever since.
An FCC legal investigation? Is that what makes it right or wrong? The law?
History has shown that sex, out of control, disintegrates a society. Laws are indeed necesssary to protect vice-ridden greed breeders. "Whore mongers" the pimps were called in old English. In a way, the homosexual enterprise itself is another kind of whore mongering. They want anything and everything to be "legal," and therefore accepted as "right." I'd call that selling sex, to the government.
But ask any parent. Censorship is the first act of child training. "No!" is a critical concept. Without it, you quickly have a suicidal being on your hands. Let the "fathers" in government re-learn that first lesson in social nurturing.