Actors have a right to say whatever they want: http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/the-real-problem-with-the-hamilton-shout-out-to-pence/ That said, perform your play for a paying audience and then get out of their face. Soviet actors would have loved the American possibility of putting on a show without having to bend the knee to a totalitarian ideology. Art for art's sake! Now these particular American actors can't stop themselves from giving an audience the benefit of their soft-totalitarian PC ideology. Besides, if you can't make your point with your art form - be it poetry, music, fiction or whatever - don't delay us from the fresh air with your prosaic explanations. Last year I watched the NT's "live" version of Hamlet at a local cinema before vainly attempting to escape as Benedict Cumberbatch hectored us, post-production, with his views on the state of the world. Save it for the Graham Norton Show, my friend. While we're at it, here's a review of Cumberbatch's performance (before the hectoring): http://adelaidereview.com.au/arts/cinema/review-hamlet/
The final paragraph of my review summarises the hurdle Tony Blair would have to jump were he to return to domestic politics: "The dream has soured for the man who once upon a time was as popular as Princess Diana. At this moment, in his book, it seems a little churlish not to feel sorry for him. But maybe our sympathy is better spent on the nation he misruled for ten long years."
Politically speaking, at least, John Lennon was always ahead of the curve, with Paul McCartney valiantly trying to catch up. Well, 48 years later Paul has finally caught up...only to find the caravan has moved on.
The Left Power Elite doubles down on its attack on 'Deplorables'. But is that such a smart idea? Here Tucker Carlson easily exposes a would-be PC hit man as a total fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp7jyFzflW4
Everybody who belongs to their Rainbow of Discontents (Ellison et al) gets a free pass; everybody who opposes them (Steven Bannon et al) is an anti-Semite, racist, fascist, white supremacist, mysoginist, xenophobe.
It might not be anti-Semitic - depending on the circumstances - to label someone anti-Semitic for criticising Israel, but surely it is darkly duplicitous to call someone who defends Israel, and will help guide America towards the official recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the State of Israel, as anti-Semitic. David P. Goldman is spot on: https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2016/11/15/why-the-bie-lie-about-steve-bannon/
We will find many more articles like this one: The New Republican Party | The American Spectator American is in the midst of a populist insurrection. It is a Second American Revolution. And it will not stop. In fact, it is just the beginning. From a modern-day leftist point of view it is a counter-revolution. From my anti-PC point of view, I would say it is a revolution in the spirit of 1776, Europe 1848, Russia February/March 1917, and so on. People who characterize themselves as "conservative" could be on either side depending on what position they have taken or now choose to take, because Trump's victory is a populist uprising and not a conservative per se uprising. George W. Bush etc have definitely put themselves on the anti-revolution side of history. Paul Ryan - awkwardly - is now trying to get aboard the Trump Train. Donald J. Trump was not how I imagined the walls of PC hell would be transcended. I imagined maybe an eagle soaring over our prison walls. Trump is a dump-truck that has come to smash our prison gate off its hinges. One joins (or not) a revolution as one finds it. The New Republican Party will be a very different entity than it has been in the past. In that, for sure, the article is accurate.
Long Live the Clinton-Wall Street-Hollywood-MSM-Corporate-Washington Ruling Class!
The faux anarchists are out on the streets in America protesting against democracy. Pointedly, many thinking anarcho-libertarians who opposed the Establishment or Left Ruling Class, such as Julian Assange, worked against Hillary Clinton. Here, in any case, is Mark Steyn: http://www.steynonline.com/7593/when-everyone-hitler-nobody-hitler
I m happy to reprise my article, "Battlers against the System", which was written more than a month ago and published in the November 2016 edition of Quadrant. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2016/11/battlers-system/ From the start of the year I had been writing that 2016 was shaping up to be the year of a populist revolt in America. Australia's ABC Drum, which still left the window slightly open for a contrarian view at the time, published two of my articles on this theme early in the year. Firstly, in February 2016, "The American voters have gone rogue": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/mccann-american-voters-have-gone-rogue/7158840 and then, in March 2016, "Who is to blame for Donald Trump?": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-18/mccann-who-is-to-blame-for-donald-trump/7256858 [I should only add that my title was "How to explain Donald Trump"] There were many other commentators, of course, who tried to understand the trend and its meaning and got it right. Well done to all of them. It is astonishing to me that PC commentators, who got everything wrong including Trump's defeat, still get big corporate money to write their tosh - sorry, commentaries - after that have been proven to be empty heads. Well, at least I made some money backing Trump at 5/1 the day before the election. I am not a gambler as such but wanted to prove a point. I was not absolutely certain he would win, and yet 5/1 showed that even the bookies were brainwashed by Mainstream Media propaganda.
The sentence "You can no longer deny that Hillary Clinton is actively working with a global movement whose goal is to destroy Western civilization" is obscure in its meaning, deliberately so perhaps. I do not think Hillary Clinton's goal "is to destroy destroy Western civilization for the selfish benefit of money and power" but that will be the direction things will head if she does come to power. If we start with Obama: one does not have to believe he is a Muslim or a Muslim Brotherhood member to explain his foreign policy debacle. As I have often written, President Obama appears to have sincerely believed that political Islam (the non-violent version of Islamic revivalism) would serve as an antidote to violent Islamic revivalism (Salafi jihadism). Alas, the two entities might be rivals at times but what they share in common as "brothers in doctrine" outweighs their differences in crucial cases - and certainly people graduate form one to the other, and so there is a continuum on that level as well. The phenomenon is explained here: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/04/long-war-comes-lebanon/ I think Obama's miscalculation/naivety can be explained by his modern-day leftist ideology. I think the same goes for Hillary Clinton up to a point. While she shares the same lust for power and ideology of Obama, I think there is an extra venality and moral corruption associated with Clinton Inc. For Huma Abedin, on the other hand, everything she has done, including her marriage (though not its bizarre fall-out), would make the Cambridge Five very proud.