Video: Walking into Mordor

posted at 11:45 am on July 5, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Bill Whittle returns with a new Firewall, and a new term: oikophobia, defined as an irrational fear of the familiar, the opposite of xenophobia. Bill argues that it wasn’t conservatives who launched the culture war in the 1980s, but the Left, starting much earlier. When the workers’ revolution promised by Karl Marx failed to materialize because capitalism actually delivered expansion of wealth and rising standards of living. Instead of losing the economic argument, the Left tried winning a culture war — and largely succeeded:

Whittle argues, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, that conservatives need to engage in the entertainment industry. Like it or not, they have tremendous power, and boycotts only leave Mordor to continue to spew noxious gases. Declaration Entertainment is one channel to do this; another is to support those entertainment-industry products that either don’t carry hostile messages about conservatives and traditional values or actually portray them in a positive light. Watch to the end of the video to see how you can help Declaration Entertainment make films that do the latter.

I have no problem with Hollywood entertainers making political statements in their work as long as conservatives have the same access and ability to do so. I don’t need a Hays Code to protect me from my own entertainment choices or to impose my values on others. I’d be happy with real choices in theaters for dramas and comedies that reflect a wide range of thought on values in America and around the world. Unfortunately, as Whittle and Ben Shapiro have demonstrated, Hollywood doesn’t provide that kind of balance, nor much honesty in their product. While the Mordor comparison might be a little overwrought (but only a little), a pre-1990 Pravda comparison might not be all that far off the mark.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ed and Whittle know how to get people like me to click a post ;)

Drunk Report on July 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Like it or not, they have tremendous power, and boycotts only leave Mordor to continue to spew noxious gases.

So let’s boycott only the ones the spew noxious gases.
http://www.pluggedin.com/ , from an evangelical perspective, is a good source for learning what a film preaches before you see it. They also review TV, music, & other media.

itsnotaboutme on July 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM

So let’s boycott only the ones the that spew noxious gases.
*sorry*

itsnotaboutme on July 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Whittle pwns.

Good Lt on July 5, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Along these lines, Ed, I seem to recall a Hot Air commenter suggesting to you a weekly open thread (say, on Saturday or Sunday) inviting observations of subtle and not-so-subtle liberal themes in the preceding week’s television programming.

I am not interested in watching every conceivable TV show to track liberal themes. But I would be interested to read the observations of others about that subject.

BuckeyeSam on July 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM

The left created the culture war because they knew that as long as this nation was solidy grounded on God, faith and family they could never defeat it. It is no accident that Alinsky dedicated his book to Satan. It is no accident that many of the Communist Party of America’s goals were diectly aimed at the faith, the family, and cultural morals.

Sadly-they have succeeded in destroying those very things, beyond their wildest dreams. Our culture is filth, our sexual depravity is the cause of our destroying our own young and the spectacle of Catholic politicians and clergy celebrating the most pro-death president in history.Our Black community has been morally neutered, our young contaminated and sexualized in our propagandized schools, our media no longer the constitutional watchdog,but a zealous agent of moral decay, and societal destruction.

Don L on July 5, 2011 at 11:59 AM

It would be easier to name a TV show that is not pushing radical leftist memes.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:01 PM

They won.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:02 PM

They won.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Yes sir, and for good reason.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I recall when Dan Quayle rang this very alarm bell and the left excoriated him while the fiscal right and libertarians-that were also enjoying their “ahem” moral freedom (” danged one issue social conservatives,ggrrrr”) were strangely silent!

The communists understand that all of our freedom, fiscal and otherwise is dependent upon all our rights coming from Nature’s God (and responsibilities)

It is exactly that which they must attack as we can see with our left and their present barrage of articles and comments recently undermining our Constitution which alone recognizes those rights.

Don L on July 5, 2011 at 12:12 PM

It would be easier to name a TV show that is not pushing radical leftist memes.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:01 PM

I’m afraid that after EWTN it is only info-mercials, and then – I ignore the personal enhancement types.

Don L on July 5, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Yes sir, and for good reason.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Ernesto — it’s because of entropy. Any system of order decays unless energy is put into it. If you support decay and disorder, then you approve of the Left.

At one time America was on course to reach the stars. Now we’re lucky if we don’t live in caves. The Left and it’s supporters are barbarians.

NaCly dog on July 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM

This is the point Breitbart made in his book. We are in a culture war so we need to compete in all forms of media.

Bill C on July 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Yes sir, and for good reason.
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I’m not sure how “good” the reason is but the reason and the process is described to a tee in Romans 1:18-32

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Ok, Can’t see the video. Just getting a black box.

Anyone else having this problem?

(Using: Firefox 5)

wearyman on July 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM

NaCly dog on July 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Whatever you say, pal. I’m sure that when we were actually going to the stars, some old farts were saying the same thing, except it was probably about letting blacks into restaurants or something. You may find it convenient to blame every problem on something intangible and unfalsifiable like social entropy, but you make no compelling argument whatsoever. You’re spitting into the wind, and with little force.

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:23 PM

::yawn:: has no one told you that the bible is baloney?

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM

ernesto, why do you hate God?

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM

how can i hate that which does not exist? that’s like asking me why I hate plasmids from the planet hyperion.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Oh, you want money! Well why didn’t you say so at first.
You can just earn it and spend your own money to do whatever you want.
Oh, you don’t want to spend your own money.
Well then just relax and let the free market system govern the nation for you.

:: ))

Observation on July 5, 2011 at 12:36 PM

::yawn:: has no one told you that the bible is baloney?
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Yawn, – I’m used to hearing people say that about things they don’t (and can’t) understand.

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I agree with Bill, and ditto for education. Kwitcherbelllyakin and dive into the belly of the beast. It’s the only way to kill it.

Bob's Kid on July 5, 2011 at 12:40 PM

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I understand it thoroughly: I’m the son of a Jehovah’s witness and have 12 years of jesuit school under my belt. I understand it just fine, its just baloney. Like someone can understand greek mythology, while recognizing that its baloney.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:41 PM

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Yes sir, and for good reason.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

And that reason is?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Liberals are pathologically self-imposed haters of American Exceptualism, and Hollywood is a vehicle towards anti-capitalism. Got it! Hey, let’s compare them to Gollum, the vile creature consumed with the lust for power through deceit and treachery.

Rovin on July 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I understand it thoroughly: I’m the son of a Jehovah’s witness and have 12 years of jesuit school under my belt. I understand it just fine,
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:41 PM

None of this necessarily provides the slightest bit of advantage to understanding scripture.

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:47 PM

And that reason is?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Because social conservatives had no particularly good reason, nor any defensible legal justification, for arbitrarily limiting the non-violent conduct of others. Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

None of this necessarily provides the slightest bit of advantage to understanding scripture.

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:47 PM

It makes it difficult for you to assume out of hand that I have no understanding, though.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

You mean like civil rights non-discrimination laws?

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:50 PM

It makes it difficult for you to assume out of hand that I have no understanding, though.
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM

You posts on this board make it abundantly clear. “By their fruits you shall know them”

tommyboy on July 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

What would be the basis of your standards?

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:53 PM

And that reason is?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Because social conservatives had no particularly good reason, nor any defensible legal justification, for arbitrarily limiting the non-violent conduct of others. Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Do you mean things like arbitrary standards for how people can express themselves through the cudgel of political correctness?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 12:55 PM

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:30 PM
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Brush up on your thermodynamics ernesto. Your Soros based arguments fail again.

You demonstrate again your personal lack of understanding of science and human societal success. Tell me again how NASA’s budget, being diverted to fund food stamps of illegal immigrants and those made jobless by the Left, has increased. Except you can not so assert. Barbarian.

NaCly dog on July 5, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Excellent. Thank you, Bill Whittle.

My favorite on the subject is Why There is a Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America
by John Fonte, Hoover Institution

petefrt on July 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Excellent. Thank you, Bill Whittle.

My favorite on the subject is Why There is a Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America
by John Fonte, Hoover Institution

petefrt on July 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM

You wrote the post I was gonna write!

Fonte’s essay is in the top-five most influential articles I have read in my life – and provided this Old Comrade with the context needed to get off the road to serfdom.

(I know firsthand why the Left & Obama fear American Exceptionalism.)

Bruno Strozek on July 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Murdering a million babies a year is called “arbitrary and non-violent conduct. Right!

Rovin on July 5, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Murdering a million babies a year is called “arbitrary and non-violent conduct. Right!

Rovin on July 5, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Ernesto, would you say that inside the womb is non-violent?

Chip on July 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Fonte’s essay is in the top-five most influential articles I have read in my life – and provided this Old Comrade with the context needed to get off the road to serfdom.

Bruno Strozek on July 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I’d say the same, Bruno. One of the most influential articles ever. Fonte brought me a new understanding of the left, what they’re up to, and why. And note he wrote that essay over ten years ago.

petefrt on July 5, 2011 at 1:24 PM

I understand it thoroughly: I’m the son of a Jehovah’s witness and have 12 years of jesuit school under my belt. I understand it just fine, its just baloney. Like someone can understand greek mythology, while recognizing that its baloney.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Then your parents were piss-poor JWs and it is no wonder you have theological issues.

darcee on July 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Because social conservatives had no particularly good reason, nor any defensible legal justification, for arbitrarily limiting the non-violent conduct of others. Social conservatism insists that it may set arbitrary standards for non-violent conduct.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Abortion, the linchpin of the left’s ideology, is an extremely violent act. Against a totally innocent party, I might add. How bout that “social justice” now?

inviolet on July 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM

They won.

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Yes sir, and for good reason.

ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:06 PM

You do realize faraway was mocking Obama, right?

The whole trajectory of the left’s pushing of their social agenda, and gloating they’re getting what they want, reminds me of the fellow who fell from a 70th story window and kept passing windows on the way down: “So far so good!”

inviolet on July 5, 2011 at 1:31 PM

ernesto is a Mordorian.

AnotherOpinion on July 5, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Great video! Go get’em Bill!

Speakup on July 5, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Take a look at the UK to see how the Pyrrhic victory of the Left’s culture wars is leading to the demise of Western culture as a whole. It’s nothing to celebrate.

RedRedRice on July 5, 2011 at 1:40 PM

The Left controls education, information, and entertainment. In doing so, they control how people think. It’s just that simple.

The Monster on July 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM

I don’t think Ernesto knows what the word ‘arbitrary’ means.

Speaking from a social conservative perspective, based upon my Christian beliefs there’s nothing arbitrary about our attempt to limit the non-violent conduct of others. Now he (Ernie) may disagree with my approach and even dismiss my belief in God, as he’s wont to do, but that does not make mine or other’s approaches arbitrary.

StompUDead on July 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM

faraway on July 5, 2011 at 12:33 PM
how can i hate that which does not exist? that’s like asking me why I hate plasmids from the planet hyperion.
ernesto on July 5, 2011 at 12:35 PM

That isn’t really what you hate, though. What you hate is the self restraint and responsibility that is asked of you, most often by the religious.

Count to 10 on July 5, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Speaking from a social conservative perspective, based upon my Christian beliefs there’s nothing arbitrary about our attempt to limit the non-violent conduct of others. Now he (Ernie) may disagree with my approach and even dismiss my belief in God, as he’s wont to do, but that does not make mine or other’s approaches arbitrary.

StompUDead on July 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Non-arbitrary totalitarianism isn’t any better than arbitrary totalitarianism.

hicsuget on July 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Non-arbitrary totalitarianism isn’t any better than arbitrary totalitarianism.

hicsuget on July 5, 2011 at 2:39 PM

You’re argument is idiotic. 4 cases: Anarchy (no rules), 1 rule, many rules, totalitarianism (all rules). You fail to make the case that anyone advocates totalitarianism. You may say that there is a point of too many rules that is still totalitarianism, however in so doing you admit a non-arbitrary basis for a rule. If you advocate anarchy, we can dismiss you. If you allow 1 rule, there is no logical reason to not allow many rules. The question then becomes on what basis are the rules devised?

AnotherOpinion on July 5, 2011 at 3:00 PM

****SPOILER ALERT FOR THE MOVIE CARS 2****

I saw the movie this past weekend. The movie for its own sake was entertaining. I was amused watching it. However, it has a liberal bias. Big Oil is evil. They’re the bad guys. Even the Military Jeep gets in on the act at the end by declaring “Once Big Oil, always Big Oil” doing his part to thwart them. The Hippie Van has his own little heroic contribution as well, and calls the Military Jeep “tree hugger” as the Jeep did to him earlier in the movie. The movie advises “alternative fuel” is the greatest while fossil fuel gasoline is bad and you should stop using it.

I can give the movie the benefit of the doubt in the sense that it’s about cars. Oil and gasoline are going to matter, but the first movie had its moral lesson without political propaganda, so suspicion remains.

hadsil on July 5, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Hmmm. First, I love anyone who will make LOTR references. So there’s that right away. Loved the history lesson, the phrase “Oikophobia”, and the fact that citizen film-makers are trying to make their voices heard.

However, he says that we don’t want to “silence” the Marxist message in Hollywood. Why not? That message is subversive and we have laws against that in our country. Maybe his point is that Hollywood’s pushing of Marxism has been so successful that the populace wouldn’t allow the laws to be enforced, in which case, we will have to make movies to win them over (winning hearts and minds?).

Lord of the Rings celebrated its 10th annivesary this past month by running each of the three movies at theatres across the country for one night only, once a week, for three weeks. I went each week and my huge theatre sold out each week. The theatre had to open additional screens to accomodate the crowds. The LOTR Trilogy are the best movies to come out in countless years and has the message that Old Hollywood used to preach. It is popular. Good movies with good messages can succeed. So, good luck to them.

But, “Arroyo” is a modern-day “High Noon”? While that movie is captivating and extremely well-made, it has un-American messages within: it shows “townsfolk” so cowardly that they will not help their local sherriff. Sure, the sherriff comes off as brave, but the depiction of the townsfolk is not an accurate reflection of Americans out West in the 1800s. Plus, it had black-listers working on it and was a protest movie of what HUAC was (rightfully) doing at the time.

Also, as bad as Hollywood has been (and I’d argue it goes back a little over 50 years instead of Whittle’s 40), we are not just fighting Hollywood. We are fighting the public school system that has been infiltrated with Marxism for decades. We are also fighting the universities, rife with Marxism. Both fronts need to be fought for Good to triumph over Evil.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Rovin on July 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Works for me.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM

here’s a problem: all but a slim minority of conservatives are proud philistines. conservatives can’t recognize a conservative theme in a work of art unless it’s a bald eagle clutching a bible with old glory flapping in the background.

i once had the leader of the depaul university college republicans insist that v for vendetta was a republican movie because it was all anti-government and stuff. conversely, i’ve tried showing conservative friends films by noah baumbach and they thought it was liberal trash because, without explosions and stuff, it must be for arty libtards.

also, though conservatives are better on this, the sorts of people who are averse to political correctness understand opposing political correctness in terms of permission to use the n-word profligately.

eh on July 6, 2011 at 2:50 AM

That message is subversive and we have laws against that in our country.

Aslans Girl on July 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM

WTF?

eh on July 6, 2011 at 2:57 AM