We know that there are groups who talk about anti-collectivist ideas and can move huge volumes of books, movies tix etc. The problem is, they are housed in churches, and so tainted.

The question is how to create mainstream groups without religious affiliation who are interested in consuming these works as a social experience, the equivalent of Oprah’s Book Club.

I argue that the ability to have someone with whom you can talk about a work and what it means is at the heart of a consumer experience that produces big sales volume.

Could there be such a thing as a conservative women’s magazine?

Could there be a movement for men’s book clubs that would read general fiction? This was the heart of the Harry Potter phenomenon: boys would read them.

In a thread above there’s a critter going on about how President Bush won’t do charitable work in retirement becaus eof his “ideology.” He didn’t justify it because this is QED to the left– “he’s a conservative, therefore he’s a social darwinist and doesn’t give a damn.”

It was clear the poster had no clue this was a stereotype and one that is completely at odds with reality.

I don’t think most conservatives buy into this. Most conservatives and libertarians I know are up to their elbows in charitable work, so we know better.

BUT we totally buy into a lot of the other leftist stereotypes. And the worst of these is “Non liberals are not creative.”

Think about it. Go over bestsellers and major movie directors. Count the percentage of conservatives. If conservatives were a race with those percentages in ANY industry everyone would be screaming “discrimination” Absolutely the same with music and art.

The left’s explanation for this — just like their explanation for why there are few conservative professors “conservatives are dumb” said with more or less class — is “conservatives are not creative. They are conformists. Of course they’re not artists.”

And we — by the repeated appeals to the right to be “creative” buy into this myth and beat ourselves up with the idea that none of our own are producing anything worth promoting and selling.

Ye sweet angels and fishies. Let’s analyze that, shall we?

How creative is the latest Hollywood love story where she’s sensitive, caring and some sort of an activist, and he’s uncaring until she converts him to her — liberal, of course — point of view? Or the latest “Us troops are to blame” story?

What’s actually happening is that most popular entertainment has become stultifyingly UNcreative. I stopped watching TV when I could tell not only how the show was going to end, but also which turning points there would be, step by step, in the first five minutes. I watch very few movies anymore for the same reason. I USED to live with a book in my hands. I USED to buy something like twenty, thirty books a month. Nowadays I have half a dozen authors on my pre-order list and I often have trouble finding anything else new to read. At least in fiction. I have retreated to non fic — where the bias is often as obvious, but more filterable — and to re-reading the old stuff. Not because I don’t want new stuff — I do — but because the new stuff is BORING.

I don’t want you to think it’s because I don’t like different political opinions. There are plenty of writers who are good despite being left loony. Plenty of musicians — groan — who are great despite their lyrics being.. well… insane left. And I don’t want you to think I’m one of those people who always prefers the familiar to the old. I’m very not that way. In fact, I spend considerable time LOOKING for new stuff and being disappointed.

When the whole point of a story is that men are bad… even if it were a point I agreed with — it’s not. People are people — it would be BORING. The point has been made over and over and over again. Not only is there nothing new about it, there is no risk involved in making it. Not long ago I heard a book hailed for being “against racism.” It was, apparently, a brave piece of speaking truth to power.

Will you tell me who the overt racists in power are? (Don’t count inverse racism.) Will you tell me how this woman could be speaking truth to power when NO ONE IN POWER would dare say anything against it, much less swat her? Same for feminism, prejudice against the handicapped, etc, etc.

On the other hand, let’s look at the type of personality it takes to come through our schools — with their indocrination machinery — and emerge a conservative. Conformist? Non creative? Only in liberal minds!

I know they — and a lot of conservatives — say we prefer “real world” work, like doctors or engineers or… Yeah, maybe. Maybe that comes to an extent with the personality that analyzes things. BUT the sad fact is some of us are vocationally inclined to art despite what our mode of learning, etc. might be. Artistic bend, (like mental illness with which it’s often associated) runs in families. In my nearby relations, we have musicians, painters, poets, writers and a game designer. (A new form of the disease, I suppose.) We do read a lot about history and science, but our work is mostly in what everyone would consider “artistic.”

What we’re seeing is a situation in which the left are the ones who hold the power but behave as if those in power were still — if they ever existed, I’m seriously beginning to doubt it if only because I see what they write aoubt what is hapening now — the “old right” who believed in women barefoot and pregnant, different races in different places and sex firmly in whatever closet it belonged in.

This is very sweet if you are a liberal artist. First, everyone up the chain of command, including those in actual political power — even Republicans bow to PC — believe exactly as you do. Second, they will tell you how brave you are for challenging power. So you get the benes of establishment AND being a rebel. And all you have to do is be willing to parrot “daring discoveries” that have become part of the social ethos decades ago. (Which either has to mean you believe in them or you have no conscience and, of course, you have a very high threshold of boredom.)

Except for co-opting the rebel myth, this is not an unusual situation. Aristrocracy always rewards their pet artists.

It might be simply the way things are in the long run of human history. And I wouldn’t bat an eye, except for the obvious fact that conservatives too buy into the liberal stereotypes.

Don’t. We are creative. They’re by and large conformists. Unfortunately, they are “the man.” And “the man” will keep you down unless you “sell out” to them. (Irony meant and tongue firmly in cheek.)

The Hollywood Left—by which I mean the vast majority of those in Hollywood—writers, directors, producers, actors, agents, studio heads and executives—at least starting at the time of the “Hollywood Ten” in WWII, have bought into a whole leftist world-view, with it’s attendant morality, “causes,” good guys and bad guys, things acceptable and things not, those who are “in” and those who are “out”–a whole demonology—and they know how they fit into this scheme of things, and it usually pays off very well for many of them; it’s like a pyramidal medieval political and social order, in which each person has his place and function in the hierarchy.

To have to give all this up is to give up who they have made themselves, who they believe they are, and this is not an easy thing. Moreover, since each individual gets a lot out of this system—money, power, glamor, peer approval, self-esteem, an out group to hate, and the satisfaction of knowing they are “right”–subverting or destroying this system is going to be extremely hard to do.

Look, they are churning out these crap movies, featuring crap actors, and despite these serial flops that are turning off their audience in increasing numbers, and causing the collapse of ticket and DVD sales and—one by one—the collapse of studios, they have convinced themselves that they are turning out many great films on important topics, each with it’s heart and mind in the “right place,” that these barely sentient actors are “first rate”—look at all the awards they get from their fellow “artistes”–and that they are doing the important work of “enlightening” all the knuckle-dragging boobs out there in “flyover country”—so, despite the losses, they will continue to spew out this crap; that is why I say, much more than just money is involved here.

I keep wondering about the gatekeepers who turned down the first Harry Potter book. What did they think their job was? And why did they think they were any good at it?

The weird thing is, when you can get the the production and distribution going, “conservative” culture makes bags of money. I’m not sure people understood how conservative Tolkien was. C.S. Lewis was more obviously not “progressive.” And yet their stories yield blockbuster movies.

Compare that to the lameness of the last Star Wars movies. I’m not saying that they were wretched because they were explicitly progressive, but facile progressive posturing was symptomatic of a fundamental inability to think very deeply about much of anything.

There is a business opportunity in here somewhere.

I’m not upset at you, whatever it might sound like. I understand where you’re coming from. However –
I’m getting very tired of people — last week Mark Steyn — telling those of us who produce entertainment to hurry up and write some really good, entertaining books; create some spectacular, conservative movies; etc. and that this will, by itself, swamp the swamp of the left — as it were.

Unfortunately given the scale of marketing in the present world, entertainment industry is NOT a meritocracy in any way and at any level.

There are several of us, creative types who are what would be called right leaning. Writers, artists, screen writers, support people of various kinds. However and uniformly, the gatekeepers — those who actually give the go-ahead, the money, etc — are not only left but loony left.

I was discussing this with my husband today and he said something of the virtues of keeping one’s mouth shut until one made it. Yes. And that used to work. But right now, if you want the gatekeepers to get enthused you have to support at least one and preferrably more of their “hot buttons.”

Like you I’m a Libertarian — and very laissez faire about it — I could easily endorse things like same-sex marriage. At least in the sense I could “endorse” any marriage, my not giving a hang how my neighbor’s live .

Ah, but that’s not enough. Unless you vocally push the whole shebang — and in these recent years this is very much a matter of “peace” and BDS — you’ll still not get the gatekeepers “push.” You won’t get their enthusiasm. You won’t get financing. Your movie will not get shown. Your book won’t be on the shelves. The perception WILL be that there’s nothing like that out there. People can’t love what they can’t find.

As an example — there is a movie out there called Second Hand Lions. If you haven’t seen it, see it. On quality alone, as a family movie, it SHOULD have become a blockbuster. Did it? No, mostly ignored. Is it a startlingly conservative movie? Well, not really. But it is DEFINITELY not a “liberal” pov movie with glamour and push surrounding it..

Even those odd non-left movies that do become blockbusters — The Passion and 300, say — end up not resulting in follow up. The gatekeepers would NEVER allow it. Also after ONE movie like that gets through, the gates close even more firmly — and the gates exist at every level, from financing to distribution to publicity.

Books… Most books that get published these days have to ENDORSE the men bad, women good, individual bad, communal good, Christian bad, pagan good ideas. ALL of them. And they have to be obvious about it, too. Neutral will not get you anywhere.

I was talking to my child about what they read in school and how it moves their perception of what is “normal” and informs their views of the world at a very early age. And how most of those books are so terrifyingly BAD (this coming from a child rarely seen without book at end of fingers) that no one would buy them except for the school assigning them. (Most of these books are about oppressed minorities and their rage, and some of what are considered ‘minorities’ would either shock you or make you laugh. Hint, very little of it has to do with race.) however, the school assigns them, and therefore they are bestsellers.

Baen books (baenbooks.com) deserves your attention and your support, if you can. It is the only surviving science fiction house not preaching either doom & gloom brought on by capitalism or some bizarre echo-lesbian-love in future that could not work. Or simply porno disguised as novels. If you used to read speculative fiction before the “New Wave” boomers made it a sub-branch of literary, you’ll probably like them or at least SOME of their authors. (There’s a wide variety.)

It’s the only publishing house I can think of — other than explicitly political houses — where you’re not required to be leftist — though they publish leftists, too. And hard right wing — and the result is the gate keepers in distribution kick in. I and several friends, when looking for a particular Baen book or other, got told “we don’t carry them. They’re right wing.” (If they’re polite. “fascist” or worse if they’re not.) They also insist Baen does only mil fic, which is far, far from true.

I gather — don’t know anyone inside and only lurk in their online bar — they do all right, but the fact is, most people won’t even know they exist. They’re not on the shelves, so the quality of the work doesn’t matter.

So… look… us creative types down here on the shop floor are working as hard as we can. A lot of us are being consigned to obscurity for refusing to sell out (if we deserve it otherwise, I don’t know, no one lets us find out.) Stop telling us to produce “good” conservative stuff. Start worrying about the mechanics of marketing and marketing organizations that will emphasize the good conservative (or apolitical) stuff.

Stop worrying about how the conservatives can get “with” pop culture. A lot of us younger libertarian types are very much “with it.” Our voices just don’t get through. Watched television, recently? think the uniform assumptions hard left built into the shows are because ONLY leftists are creative, or only leftists interested in tv?

No. it’s because they’ve figured out HOW to stop us. We’re landing on the beaches in numbers, but they hold all the narrow passes to the interior. Stop telling us to jump out of the boats faster and start figuring out how to unblock the routes.

P.

I’ve given it quite a bit of thought as well, and likewise have no real solutions to offer as of yet. I have some thoughts and suggestions, but nothing that is a concrete solution to the problem.

Consider a few facts regarding the current media environment.

First up is broadcast media.

ABC, CBS, and NBC have been losing viewers for years, predominantly to other forms of entertainment and information – think CNN, FOX, and the wide range of cable/satellite programming.

This is a positive trend but has not yet gone far enough because the influence of these 3 companies still permeates pop culture to the extent that national elections can be affected.

As proof, consider the SNL skit regarding Palin that left many useful idiots with the impression that Palin said she could “see Russia from her house”.

That was a prime example of how MSM can affect perceptions of the general public to portray a candidate as stupid, and that is the effect that has to be counteracted on a pop culture level somehow.

I’ve even heard of some young useful idiots lauding The Daily Show as a source of information!

The only way I can imagine to counteract such a pervasive influence is for those of alternative political views to start putting their money where their mouth is and make conscious decisions regarding where their money goes.

Every nickel and dime from the smallest advertising expenditure by local companies to what movie productions get funded by right leaning wealthy investors should be considered carefully with this question in mind – are political and social views that counter significantly from the views of the advertiser or investor being compromised by the companies being approached with advertising or investment capital?

If so, find an alternative means of advertising or investing. It will take a bit of work, but they are out there. Too bad there isn’t some sort of web site that lists these kinds of companies (hint hint to any enterprising internet types)!

Next up is the print media. It’s no big secret that several of the MSM print outlets are going through hard times. Even our local News and Observer (aka the Views and Disturber) has had to lay off quite a few employees.

Again, where are the viewers who supported these dinosaur business models in the past going? Some are obviously older types for whom age is finally taking it’s toll – but those viewers are not being replaced.

So where are new viewers going for information?

Obviously you have the internet – but then you end up with most people looking for sites that have the views they already tend to agree with.

I, for instance, have absolutely no interest in getting any *information* from the Puffington Host – yet there are obviously a lot of useful idiots who do go there to be told what to think.

Perhaps it’s the combination of the faltering influence of the broadcast media and it’s entertainment branch combined with a host of left wingnut websites that support and reinforce those left wingnut views that’s the real crux of the problem for those of us with either a rightish or libertarian point of view?

How do non-left wingnut types counter such a combination? There is no single entity that can be identified to be counteracted – it’s a synergy kind of thing between these different elements.

Sure you can try to neutralize one of the elements, but if you don’t have an overarching strategy to deal with all of it you still fail.

It’s like trying to poke a hole in the ocean – more water will just flow in to fill the void.

I would suggest the best way is to provide concrete alternative forms of information that are solidly backed by facts for starters.

Don’t even try to bias it one way or the other, just get the basic facts out in a non-partisan manner.

I believe most people, if exposed to non-biased information long enough, will eventually pick up on the partisanship in the MSM when they are exposed to it once more after getting non-biased information.

Such self-enlightenment goes much farther than any attempt at convincing someone as it’s an internal thought process.

At least that way anyone using such sources can use facts to counteract “feelings” expressed by the left and these sources can be viewed and noted as reliable sources of information free of bias.

Aside from that one condition, I would also suggest that the non-left wingnuts be entertaining, and yes – learn the pop-culture language and how it works.

Pop(ular) culture has been around for as long as man has, in one form or another, it’s just taken on it’s current name within the past few decades and the entertainment industry – which is largely made up of leftwingnuts – has used it to their advantage for decades now.

Their influence in turn is seen every day in the movies and other forms of entertainment that we all watch.

The only solution I have for that is for those on the political center or right to start producing entertainment that can compete with that produced by the left and allow the marketplace to decide which product to support.

If the alternative programming becomes more successful than that produced by the left – THEN you will see executives modify their programming accordingly to continue to compete.

I’m not suggesting that we end up with a cookie cutter right wing media that looks like it stepped out of the 1950′s – I’m quite libertarian in my own personal views and don’t give a crap what someone does in their own life as long as it doesn’t affect me – unfortunately this past election is definitely going to affect me so I no longer have a choice in the matter.

I’m simply suggesting that an alternative pop culture media be cultivated – just as the internet became an alternative source of information for those turning away from broadcast and print.

Last but not least, I suggest everyone give a little more thought to where their own money goes personally.

If you know that a certain company has publicly taken a stand to support policies you disagree with – why in hell would you in turn give your money to them? Find someplace more in tune with your own ideas to spend your money at.

Anybody else have any ideas????

Rather I pointed out he entered office under historic circumstances (the Supreme Court deciding his victory) at a time when we were at peace and had a surplus.

A profoundly stupid comment, on every level.

At peace? No we weren’t. We just hadn’t realized yet that we were at war. By the same token, FDR and Truman led us into war. The war was imposed on us in each case.

The surplus was illusory, and arose in part because of tax windfalls from the dot com bubble. Adults will recall that the recession started in 3Q 2000, before Bush even took office. It’s no more fair to blame Bush for that than it would be to blame Obama for the present situation.

And then there was that little unpleasantness in Sept 2001, which did the economy no favors for several years thereafter. That, plus skyrocketing oil prices – following increasing consumption by China and India, primarily – did not help. War spending was also a factor, don’t get me wrong, but a far bigger factor in the present financial predicament is Democratic pandering to minority voters by forcing banks to loan to uncreditworthy borrowers.

Last, the Supreme Court did not decide the election. It merely prevented Gore (for whom I voted) from continuing his months-long effort to Franken the election.

So, grow up.

yes, it’s all about race … it’s a media, black, hipster and upper middle class liberal excitement … Blacks have been winning popularity contests for years … the coronation of “Jive Turkey” … we gots to stop dat man made global warming, dude …

No undertones of racial animosity in any of these soundbites from various comments, just my projections.

And please re-read my comment; while I have criticisms of Bush, I did not lecture nor did I call him evil. I also did not indicate the Bush years were in any way a “tyranny” from which we are about to be delivered. Rather I pointed out he entered office under historic circumstances (the Supreme Court deciding his victory) at a time when we were at peace and had a surplus. Obama takes office under far more dire circumstances and all Americans, regardless of any partisan position we may hold, had better hope and pray for his administration to be successful.