The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
American Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

“Who is such a sap as to take the word of such a person?” asked journalist Christopher Hitchens about David Brock, another journalist (sort of) who confessed to having penned what he later admitted was a mendacious account of Anita Hill on behalf of the “Republican sleaze machine” (for which he was well paid with royalties and fame). [The Real David Brock, The Nation, May 9, 2002]

Well, lots of people, to judge from the reactions to Brock’s latest wallow in self-righteousness, this time directed at me.

Having defected from the right because of his pangs of conscience over his earlier fakeries, Brock has now set himself up as a “media watchdog” who pronounces, to anyone willing to pay attention, on the misdeeds of real journalists (mainly those on the political right, where Brock and his fans like to purport all evil is located).

Last week, he published an open letter to the president of my syndicate demanding an explanation as to why it distributes my column, with a transparent invitation to stop. The particular column he didn’t like was the one of Nov. 26 about the now-infamous ABC Monday Night Football ad starring black football star Terrell Owens and white sexpot Nicolette Sheridan.

What bothered Brock was that I denounced the ad as subverting not only “morals and good taste” but also “white racial and cultural identity” through its deliberate glorification of interracial sex.

“We strongly condemn the clear bigotry of this column,” Brock pontificated, the “bigotry” presumably being my dim view of interracial marriage. Well, I’m sorry, but I do take a dim view of it, for the simple reason that I would like my culture to continue. I see nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I’d like to know why Brock thinks there is something wrong with it. Nor am I the only one to think so.

In recent years, any number of prominent Jewish spokesmen have expressed their own concerns about Jewish intermarriage with non-Jews. One in particular is Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of Great Britain, who writes:

“The Jewish people, having survived for thousands of years in the most adverse circumstances, including the Holocaust, is today threatened by intermarriage and assimilation. Jewish communities throughout the diaspora are experiencing demographic decline. Why has this happened, and can anything be done to reverse the trend?” [The only argument against intermarriage]

Nor is the chief rabbi alone. A few years ago, neo-conservative Elliott Abrams, then president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and now on the National Security Council staff, wrote a book, Faith or Fear, in which he described rising rates of Jewish intermarriage to non-Jews as a “demographic disaster.”

I’m not Jewish, but these gentlemen are right, and they have every reason to worry about what Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz calls “the vanishing American Jew”—a result of intermarriage with non-Jews.

Gentiles today are not mainly threatened by intermarriage with non-whites, but by their small families—but any group facing demographic decline (as whites worldwide do) and wants to endure as a group could argue against intermarriage, and some well-respected commentators are making precisely that point.

Why can’t I?

As I noted in the column, “Blacks are permitted to notice race,”and so are most other minority groups. But “whites aren’t.” If they do notice race, they get denounced for “bigotry” and the people who publish them are invited not to do so, with subtle little hints that if they don’t stop publishing them, they will be punished themselves.

But my views are not really in question—I’m pretty plain about them. Nor is my right to express those views, at least among normal people. My syndicate happens to be just a little more professional in its view of journalism and a good deal more committed to free expression than Brock.

What does worry me is that anyone takes frauds like David Brock seriously at all, but to judge from the hate mail I’ve received and similar demands for me to be muzzled, apparently many do.

We now know the answer to Hitchens’ question about who is such a sap as to take him seriously. There are enough of them creeping around out there to cause normal people to worry.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: American Media 
🔊 Listen RSS

ABC Sports last week took careful aim at the “moral issues” that are said to have driven this month’s national election and delivered a good swift kick to their dentures on national television.

The main reaction from viewers and the professional “family values”lobby has been to denounce the nudity and clearly implied sex of the now-notorious ad that promoted last week’s Monday Night Football game. That’s all well and good, but there was more going on in the ad that no one will mention—race.

The ad shows blonde white sexpot Nicolette Sheridan of the steamy “Desperate Housewives” series smooching up to black football star Terrell Owens in the locker room of the Philadelphia Eagles. Then the young lady drops her bath towel and jumps into Mr. Owens’ not-exactly recalcitrant arms.

“Aw, hell,” he leers, “the team’s going to have to win without me.”

In the aftermath of the similar reaction to CBS’s showing of the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake flap during the Super Bowl last February, there can be little doubt the ABC ad was not just a blunder.

It was an intentional act of moral subversion.

It was filmed the Friday before, and in the aftermath of all the jabber about moral issuesin the election, it ought to be transparent that it was intended as an act of political-cultural subversion as well.

In the CBS incident, Miss Jackson exposed her breast on camera during a performance with Mr. Timberlake. The Federal Communications Commission fined CBS, which broadcast the Super Bowl, the piddling sum of $550,000—little more than lunch money, of course, for the big networks and hardly a deterrent to similar smacks at good taste in the future.

But taste and morality are by no means the ad’s only targets.

Like the Jackson-Timberlake performance, the Owens-Sheridan ad was interracial and brazenly so—if only morals and taste had been the targets, the producers could easily have found white actresses who are less obviously Nordic than the golden-locked Miss Sheridan, but Nordic is what the ad’s producers no doubt wanted.

For that matter, if you only wanted to take a swipe at morals and taste, you could find a black woman to rip her towel off or replace Mr. Owens with a famous white athlete (there are still a few).

But that wasn’t the point, was it? The point was not just to hurl a pie in the face of morals and good taste but also of white racial and cultural identity. The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.

So far only one voice has mentioned the ad’s racial meaning and denounced its insensitivity (to blacks)—that of black Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy.

Blacks are permitted to notice race. Whites aren’t.

But the ad’s message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience.

Nevertheless, for decades, interracial couples of different sexes have been sneaked into advertising, movies and television series, and almost certainly not because of popular demand from either race. The Owens-Sheridan match is only the most notorious to date.

In the minds of those who produced the ad, race is at least as important as the moral and aesthetic norms their ad subverts.

To them, the race as well as the religion, the morality, and the culture of the host society are all equally hostile and oppressive forces that need to be discredited, debunked and destroyed.

If the destruction can’t happen at the polls or through the courts, they can always use the long march through the culture that control of the mass media allows.

Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself.

“We apologize,” smirked the spokesman for those who sponsored the ad, Mark Mandel, the Vice President of ABC Sports.

Mr. Mandel of course ultimately reports to his own boss, Michael Eisner, chief executive of the Walt Disney Company that owns ABC.

And Mr. Eisner’s Disney in recent years has become a battering ram against traditional American identity.

Re-electing President Bush and voting against homosexual marriage are well and good, but they won’t defeat the real enemy in the moral, cultural and racial war that the likes of Mr. Mandel and Mr. Eisner are waging.

If American voters really are driven by the “moral issue,” they need to drive a good bit further than Mr. Bush and his “family values” allies have suggested.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: American Media 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”