A unanimously negative media response to the political slapstick movie American Carol reinforces my theory that humor -- and satire in particular -- is an accurate litmus test of one's political and ideological convictions, even if one insists on having no convictions at all. If you want to check your friends' politics, take them to see this conservative comedy and watch the reaction.

Committed liberals won't laugh at conservative humor and vice versa. If they don't agree on the joke's basic philosophical premise, the sting will miss the spot and the joker will be shrugged off as a pathetic fool (for reference see conservative reaction to any of the David Letterman shows in the last ten years).

Besides, what kind of satire is that which doesn't show President Bush as a cross-eyed war-mongering idiot with a Hitler mustache? Without that minimum requirement film critics can't really be expected to rate a political comedy as groundbreaking, original, and funny. Looks like they all had prior commitments.

Am I implying that all American film critics are committed liberals? Not just yet -- we must psychoanalyze them first.

The fact that all critics -- who otherwise are a rather disunited bunch - displayed a monolithic unity in declaring American Carol "unfunny" speaks not so much about the new film as about their old allegiances in culture wars. Their infuriated braying from across the political minefields helps to identity their species and gives away the locations of minefields. The mischievous comedy worked like a flare sent from behind the enemy lines, exposing hostile fortifications and troop movements, causing commotion, and providing additional comic relief. It would be worth making American Carol just for that.

But if you're an academic pacifist and prefer a highbrow, non-violent analogy, consider likening American Carol to a yardstick that allows us empirically to measure the disconnect between the media and the American public.

On the one-stop movie website RottenTomatoes.com that rates films on a 100% scale, American Carol scored an almost unprecedented 0% from top critics, a miserable 13% from all critics, and a whopping 72% from the RT community (the community score would probably be higher if liberal activists didn't bomb it with zero ratings). For added objectivity I also made a comparative list of critical quotes. The results will astound you -- but more on that later.

To continue with analogies, American Carol can also be compared to an X-ray tool for studying the disparity between differently shaped funny bones in liberals and conservatives -- a phenomenon I had mentioned in my earlier analysis of liberal reaction to conservative humor.

Our perception of "funny" is part of our overall perception of reality and is inseparable from our values and beliefs. In this sense a random chuckle can be as telling as a knee jerk in the doctor's office, betraying our prejudices, attachments, and stereotypes. The switch that prompts us to either laugh or cry is the same one that prompts us to either love or hate. The selection is automatic, based on what we hold true or false, right or wrong, good or evil -- the subjective beliefs we all have, whether we are aware of them or not.

Subjective beliefs are shared by large groups of people: nations, cultures, political parties, and Oprah fan clubs. It's only natural to gravitate toward people who share our beliefs; we feel more comfortable with those whose reactions are consistent with ours. On the flip side, however, it's just as natural to see those who don't share our beliefs as wrong, depraved, and stupid.

And that's precisely what film critics must have felt when they were forced, due to the lack of screenings, to see American Carol in theaters, sitting next to the cheering and laughing fellow Americans: wrong, depraved, and stupid. Feeding off a different belief system than the rest of the country, the "mainstream media" critics were not amused with the jokes whose premise they didn't condone or even understand.


It's true that what makes people in one culture laugh may very well make people in another culture cry. But is there a kind of humor that is shared universally? Humor that can be equally funny to all nations, cultures, political groups, and film critics? Are there jokes that, instead if dividing us, can bring us closer together in celebration of our common humanity? Of course there are -- only such jokes usually involve pulling a finger. Anything above that level is liable to be found divisive, insensitive, and morally depraved.

For a better perspective let's take a step away from American Carol and look at Chevy Chase who was in raptures over the recent SNL lampooning of Sarah Palin, but slammed the parody of Hillary Clinton because it went against his moral beliefs. At the same time, my conservative friends and I found the SNL Hillary jokes hilarious -- just as we thought that American Carol was very funny. Some of the funniest people I know loved it as much as I did.

Now that we've agreed that our funny bones are shaped differently by our biases, let's review American Carol's cultural and historical premise -- the lingering, bitter ideological standoff between conservatives and liberals that permeates every aspect of American cultural and political discourse.

While this is an undoubtedly historic conflict of epic proportions, Hollywood is mostly keeping it under wraps of a mythical "mainstream" culture. The rare appearances of conservatives in mainstream movies and TV shows are limited to hypocritical, narrow-minded hicks who attack graceful liberals but lose in the end because liberals are intellectually, culturally, and morally superior to them and represent the majority of Americans. Paradoxically, outlandish intolerant rants by brain-dead liberal celebrities in real life are also presented as mainstream.

If the notion of two antagonistic cultures within this country is news to you, please be reminded about the reality of culture war and the fact that any war requires a minimum of two adversaries. There surely are other factions -- but for now they are all aligned into two distinct opposing camps that are loosely and rather misleadingly labeled "conservative" and "liberal."

Conservatives are trying to conserve the American revolutionary tradition of small government whose main duty is to make sure people are free to take care of themselves. Liberals, on the other hand, want to impose a foreign tradition of a massive government that takes care of the people in exchange for their liberties. Did I mention that labels were misleading?

To see who the aggressor in this culture war is, notice who is trying to preserve cultural values and who is trying to change or replace them.

Hollywood was one of the first American territories occupied by liberals in culture wars. The last conservative insurgency was briefly fought there back in the 1950s. That episode was later rewritten in a classic Hollywood fashion to present liberals as modest and noble heroes fighting the roaring conservative Goliath.

Soon thereafter Hollywood was churning out dozens of agitprop culture-war movies annually, showering money and Oscars on able radicals.
But this year a small band of conservative Hollywood insurgents, risking their careers, produced one openly counter-propagandistic comedy about the very culture war that had forced them into the trenches in the first place. Of course American Carol was booed in Hollywood. What did you expect, an Oscar for best literary adaptation?

Denunciations by major film critics in the national media were echoed by an army of internet wannabes who tend to flock around the shortest rout to fame and fortune: liberal activism.

Brian Orndorf, whose film reviews appear on prestigious movie websites, calls American Carol a "lousy, hopeless movie, easily one of the worst films of the year" that "reinforces how needlessly divisive our country has become." But if the cultural division is so sizable that both groups can't even understand each other's jokes, isn't it best to acknowledge this fact and act accordingly instead of continuing to pretend and live in denial?

And what's with this "needlessly"? Aren't we supposed to "celebrate our differences"? What happened to the liberal doctrine of diversity? Or are there different kinds of differences and some differences are more different than others? Should we only celebrate those differences that conform to the party line and obfuscate those that are perpendicular to it? And isn't the latter closer to the actual meaning of "being diverse"?

The party line on this subject is clear: beat conservatives into pulp and if they resist accuse them of being "needlessly divisive." Anything less would legitimize conservatism and make it an equal partner in the cultural narrative. Because if the liberal narrative monopoly is shattered, down will go the "mainstream" cover of the liberal media, exposing decades of deception and hidden skeletons. Once you realize how high the stakes are, the sadistic critical beating of American Carol no longer looks like an overreaction. In the words of Karl Marx it was "historically inevitable."

To get a better perspective I looked up reviews of a liberal comedy Religulous with Bill Maherthat opened in theaters simultaneously with American Carol (in case you're wondering, Religulous was never labeled as "liberal," "left-wing," or even "political").

Bill Maher's idea of funny? A hundred and one minutes of bashing religion by a sad confused comedian who thinks that faith is "a neurological disorder." Orndorf's reaction? He admonished Maher for not going far enough:

"Religulous is the type of film to be sent off into the world to crack open a few eyes and change some lives. In reality, only those patient with Maher and already free of devotion will be receptive to the message. It's a missed opportunity."

No complains about "divisiveness" here, although the "crack open a few eyes" remark aptly describes the liberal idea of unity and cultural dialogue.

Curiosity prompted me to compare quotes by other critics who reviewed both American Carol and Religulous; I placed them next to each other in two columns. The results are astonishing:


But enough about Bill Maher's "all-American funniness." Considering that one of American Carol's satirical targets is Michael Moore I also checked what reviews the Carol-bashing critics may have written about Moore's "mainstream" films:



Other reviews didn't have a readily available pair, but it's worth reading them if only to understand the level of spiritual and intellectual unanimity a right-wing comedy can provoke among the otherwise disjointed critics:

An American Carol is about as not-funny as a comedy can get.
Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer - Top Critic

As entertainment, An American Carol ranks below YouTube clips of Sarah Palin.
Amy Nicholson, Boxoffice Magazine

What makes An American Carol overtly depressing rather than merely lame is its allegiance to a diseased political discourse built on crude dichotomies: Either you're a bellicose, God-fearing patriot or a troop-hating, traitorous hippie.
Sam Adams, Onion AV Club

This movie's level of political discourse makes Couric/Palin look like Frost/Nixon.
Scott Foundas, L.A. Weekly

Forget about politics for a moment...Carol is first and foremost a terrible piece of filmmaking, marred by bad performances, cringe-inducing dialogue and amateurish direction.
Ethan Alter, Film Journal International

Poorly made indie production has a script that feels like a list of ripostes collected over the last several years to liberal criticisms of the U.S.: The whole enterprise feels far more agenda- than entertainment-driven.
Todd McCarthy, Variety - Top Critic

I can't imagine anyone -- Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, red-state or blue-state, earthling or E.T. -- finding An American Carol anything other than 'not funny.' And idiotic. And demeaning. And aggressively, persistently crummy.
Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald

Cheap shots and mean spirits abound, as do celebrity cameos. But it's the laziness of the writing that most offends.
Nathan Lee, New York Times - Top Critic

Is there any filmmaker alive, whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, capable of producing a truly incisive, intelligent satire about our politically polarized times?
Rafer Guzman, Newsday - Top Critic

Given that this supremely silly satire directed by The Naked Gun's David Zucker plays more like something slapped together to beat an expiration date, it's hard to get too worked up about it.
Gary Goldstein, Los Angeles Times - Top Critic

Ultimately, the problem with An American Carol is the problem with far too much political discourse in this country, left or right: It highlights the worst excesses of the opposition for the sole purpose of discrediting the vast middle.
Ty Burr, Boston Globe - Top Critic

Although it's refreshing to encounter a parody that doesn't use tired movie genres for inspiration, An American Carol squanders its comedic potential with a near-total absence of laughs.
Frank Scheck, Hollywood Reporter - Top Critic

I'm giving it a just-barely-recommended grade not because it's terribly funny (which it isn't), but because it's fascinating as a cultural artifact.
Eric D. Snider, EricDSnider.com

In case you were wondering what "media bias" consists of, movie critics have just articulated it for you in clear terms. Not a single critic made the intellectual effort to step outside the liberal frame of reference and examine the other side's premise in order to get the joke. Isn't that what open-mindedness means? It's not as difficult as it seems -- conservatives have been doing it for years, ever since liberals took control of the movie and TV industries.

Don't get me wrong; all critics have the right to their opinions and it's great that American Constitution guarantees them the freedom to parade a maniacal knee-jerk aversion to traditional American view of this country's place in history and the world. It's diversity, right?

Having an opinion is not a problem. The trouble is that all these critics have one and the same opinion. Without a hint of diversity.

When suddenly, as if by command, formerly diverse critics cease being all over the board and are drawn, like paper clips to a magnet, into a far left corner where they begin to march in ordered formations -- that's a huge red flag over Kodak Theater.
It exposes more than just differently shaped funny bones. This is a sign of a total takeover of the national media by leftwing ideologues whose hiring and editorial policies have terminated intellectual diversity and populated offices with goose-stepping drones -- achieving a monolithic ideological purity that rivals only that in the corridors of the glorious party organ Pravda.

Now that we're clear on our domestic differences, let's turn to our foreign audiences.

To an outsider, the lasting resentful dispute between the two conflicting American voices coming out of a single American head may seem like schizophrenia, which should confuse even a well-meaning observer. And the foreigners are confused. Some abandon all efforts to understand this country; others use the confusion to stir anti-American sentiments to strengthen their own political power; yet others want to end all uncertainty by either destroying America or converting it to Islam, which is practically the same thing.

Whether we like it or not, this is the sad political reality we have to live with. Foreigners need to realize what the two voices are and what ideas they really represent before they even begin to understand anything about America's actions on the world arena and at home, including the rubbish coming out of Hollywood. Americans, too, need to realize how confused the outsiders are before they begin to understand anything about the origins of America's image abroad and the foreign reactions to their country.

Need a clue where to begin the un-confusion? Watching An American Carol might be a good start.

Nyet to "American Carol"!

No Hypen!
No American!
No Religious Songs!

All that aside, this has to be satire:

What makes An American Carol overtly depressing rather than merely lame is its allegiance to a diseased political discourse built on crude dichotomies: Either you're a bellicose, God-fearing patriot or a troop-hating, traitorous hippie.
Sam Adams, Onion AV Club

Then again, maybe not.
The "troop-hating, traitorous hippie" part is correct, so it gives a sort of legit street credit to it.

Witness Denver and St.Paul.

"bellicose, God-fearing"?....Nope.

"Patriot"?

This film?

Yes.

Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky movies get translated and circulate in Japan. Just the other day I passed a sign for a free showing of "Nakba" (I think that's the title) about the poor pitiable Palestinians who've been wronged by the Jews. I have met English teachers, Japanese and foreign, who use Moore's output for teaching (or indoctrinating, your choice). I suspect "An American Carol" will not be released here, but I could be proven wrong.

"Committed liberals won't laugh at conservative humor and vice versa."

Brilliant Comrade! Now we know how to stream line our Soviet Show trails. No more of this burden of proof or due process. Just as the great thinker Che Guevara envisioned. Great thinker not a great woodsman. He got lost a few times in Bolivia. But in the leftist cosmos lost is found, stupid is dumb, and O'Donald is funny.

This article is possibly one of the most articulate and poignant demonstrations of Left-Wing Bias in today's media. It lays bare the savage hypocrisy of Liberal "diversity" and demonstrates just how despicably underhanded our enemies in the culture war have become.

Comrades, let us praise <i>And American Carol</i>. After the ascension of the Obamessiah, aided by the O-bots in the media, this will be proof that we require the Fairness Doctrine.

I just love the Fairness Doctrine. Even the name is a lie.

Oh.

There is a reason, comrades, why the Party has decreed that it is forbidden to laugh when viewing “An American Carol.” Humor is a dangerous bourgeois-capitalist device that is deployed to undermine the authority of the Party. Jokes are a form of non-conformity, a refusal to join the stream of consciousness of the collective. A joke by definition puts you at odds with the accepted current of thought. When you laugh, you assert your individuality.

Thus we cannot under any circumstances permit humor when it comes to the holy sacraments of the Party: multiculturalism, anti-racism, feminism, equality, and historical revisionism. We understand full well that the manifestations of funniness heard in the theaters during the performance of American Carol, from the light chuckle to the raucous belly-laugh, are more threatening to our rule than a thousand reactionary op-eds.

Congratulations to the loyal movie critics who penned those stern warnings to the masses. We shall reward them in due course with an extra potatoe ration.

What tickles the funny bone? Fun is the first word in funny. If it isn't fun, it isn't funny. There was a lot of talk in the past as to whether the People's Cube was funny or not. It isn't if a thing is funny or not. It's if it's fun or not. The Left and the Right have very different ideas about what is fun in a political context. So the critics aren't any surprise. If I remember correctly, they panned Team America as well. No one even noticed it when it was in the theaters.

Fun is fun and funny is money. Now, if you damn commies put together a website that was a parody of The People's Cube - that would be funny! It would a Left wing idea of what's politically funny. You could call it The People's Circle. Instead of the picture of Marx puzzling over the Cube it would have a picture of a bunch of Lefties sitting around in a circle-jerk. Instead of the Limbaugh quote it could have a quote by John Kerry - "The only humor site for true American Patriots and their fellow travelers."

Dr. Halliburton, I must confess that these days I have trouble with the phrase "fellow travelers." It sounds too elitist. Well, hell we are elitist. But too many people know that the only traveling we do together is to Davos, Bali, and Jackson Hole.

$.$. Halliburton wrote:What tickles the funny bone? Fun is the first word in funny."

I think it is also important to remember that the first two letters in funny are F U.

It appears as though we have a capitalistic fascist thoughtcriminal. You know what we do to capitalistic fascist thoughtcriminals. *grabs rocks*

This article has a lot of great comments on American Thinker, but this one is a perfect contribution to the issue at hand. (I wonder if the commenter's screen name Zucco could be short for David Zucker).

Zucco wrote:First, congrats to Oleg for THEPEOPLESCUBE.COM, by far the most cleverly satirical site I've ever encountered; after reading this, check it out, you won't be disappointed - good satire points out truths hidden and not so hidden.

Lefitist humor, like their politics, is truly Groupthink and can't be underestimated; like public school, to be accepted one must conform, or be ostracized. But in the worlds of politics, government and media, right of center "nonconformity" can bring serious consequences.

"Racism" for example: any criticism of "minorities" or "persons of color" by non-minorities, however valid or factual, may result in said critic's public branding as Racist - personal safety no longer guaranteed, and one may even lose their job or career, simply because the employer doesn't want to become a target by association; proper penance may remove the R but not guaranteed [as Seinfeld's Kramer];

Humor, for leftists, is strictly a means of reinforcing conformity - a tool to ridicule, demean and demote those not of the Party [much like chickens will peck a sickly or 'different' chicken to death]. [emphasis mine - RS]

Mirrors, for leftists, are simply NOT funny - the solution, of course? Break the mirror.

The highlighted text is very true. I remember how in the USSR, government-subsidized "humorists" and "satirists" would collectively, like a pack of hounds, attack designated victims in accordance with the Current Truth(TM): dissidents, black marketeers, speculators, people who listen to Western radio broadcasts, people who wear Western fashions (jeans) and listen to Western music (the Beatles), etc. Such victims were usually grouped together based on some superficial characteristics and demeaned collectively. This type of "humor" usually mirrored official Party campaigns and directives and was delivered on TV, radio, in magazines, newspapers, and even songs.

In an Obamunist America it would not be unexpected to see a sudden barrage of cartoons, comedy shows, and stories demeaning greedy bankers, unlicensed plumbers, people who want to keep more of their money, people whose views promote divisiveness, people who stand in the way of the CommonGood(TM) by criticizing the Obama policies, etc.

There was, of course, a different kind of humor - the entire underground culture of un-PC jokes (that were sometimes dangerous to say in public). Those, I believe, were some of the best and the funniest jokes in the world. I knew thousands of them. It was a distinctly separate culture from the officially mandated stilted culture of Party-approved comedy. You don't have this in the US because of the freedom of speech: if a joke is funny, it's out there in the open for all to hear. But this may change. Conservative humor already is under attack, as clearly outlined in the article.

-Character off-
I agree with you a lot here. The majority of mainstream comedy has become one unfunny President Bush impersonation followed by raucous laughter from an audience who probably doesn't even know politics in the least (I hope Jon Stewart's reading this). At least there's people like Robin Williams and Jim Norton who don't seem to favor either party in particular (at least from what I've seen).

-Character on-
I find your lack of faith in the government and the Greater Good disturbing. Conservative "humor" is nothing more than pointing and laughing at the less privileged and unfortunate. May the ghost of the Righteous Stalin haunt your dreams, you capitalistic opportunistic evil greedy war-monger class envy-supporting downtrodden-hating sack of Dubya. I hope you rot in the deepest corners of nonexistence.

Some years ago I saw a good party member who was a comedy writer being interviewed. She pronounced her self very politically correct--even touching her breastbone with her hand as she said it. This was when we were just beginning to know what an engine of fascistic oppression freedom political correctness is.

She proudly stated the number of times she'd been called in to save a sinking sit-com. And for some reason they all failed.

Obviously the audiences should have been shot. For we all know that PC jokes are funny.

Aren't they?

<i>Aren't they?</i>

When the Obamessiah is elevated to the Presidency for life this disgusting piece of trash, <i>An American Carol</i>, will never see the light of day again. We cannot have nor will we stand for such an ad hominem attack that makes fun of someone of Michael Moore's stature. The man is at the leading vanguard of correct Progressive thought. This heresy will be addressed swiftly by The One when he ascends to the throne.

<i>Karacter Off</i>
I can't wait to go see this!!!

--
ZB

I think that when The Chosen One ascends to the throne of his Imperial Excellency that Michael Moore should have created for Him a Cabinet-level post of Public Morality, in which he shall have sole say of what movies may be made and seen in America.

One thing that I know is that the proles should not be allowed to waste their time on anything that is not improving. That is, which does not show the evil, imperialist thuggish ways of AmeriKKKa at her worst. Every movie will start with soldiers in Iraq bayonetting babies, with Michael Moore sitting on a divan--all alone, of course--eating a #100 pound of Cracker Jack, smiling and giving it a thumbs up.

I was under the impression that double standards go hand in hand with double speak. We can't have films out there before they are previewed by the Ministry of Misinformation! This is an outrage against group think! We need a thought war of liberation against all those who think they were exposed to this film...

Just don't make fun of the President's big ears...ah...I mean President Select Obama.

Continue making fun of W's big ears.

Stalin's Cat wrote:Ministry of Misinformation

I do hate, like hell I hate, to seem to be patronizing, but as one of the older, and gamier, members of the Cube, please let me inform you that by definition there is no such thing as a Ministry of Misinformation.

By definition, what the party says is GODDAMNED TRUE! If we say that two and two are five, and we do in every five-year plan, and worse, then, by damn, two and two are five. And people who don't believe that are soon minus some body parts that they were once attached to.

The source of misinformation is <i>The New York Times, Washington Post</i>, CBS, NBC, and that cave of the moonbat de moonbats, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC. But it will <i>never</i> do to identify it as misinformation.

Because people might then know it was full of lies.

And that won't do.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:

Stalin's Cat wrote:Ministry of Misinformation

Because people might then know it was full of lies.

And that won't do.

Full of lies and untrue facts! Can't have that. It is, rather, the truth as it currently is revealed to the party (you will be informed when it is deemed necessary; pick a number and wait in the queue)

POWER TO THE CUBE!

Good satire points out truths, hidden and not so hidden ~

Discovery by the not so main stream media has presented a problem for us.
How can we work towards the Progressive World of Next Tuesday when we are constantly misquoted? Surely, we should consider starting "A Ministry of Misinformation" to counter all these evil Republikkans and Conservatives (ugh..I hate that word).

Commissar Theocritis... sir, you are not old, vain, haughty or arrogant (just wise in the Party's ways and secrets). Perhaps you would consider taking the post of Commissar of Misinformation and Secrets? You have such a way with euphemisms and such.

MTE would support you in this effort to get out our "true" message to the "lurkers" on The People's Cube. (Not to mention that SMO would welcome the help) You do have MTE's confidence, yes?..... Of course, you do...... I never doubt Commissar Theocritis!!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

singing for the children,
Che' Gourmet

PS Everyone here knows that you can befuddle the masses with your literary and superior vocabulary prowess!

I agree and hereby nominate Commissar Theocritus to the position of "Minister of Clarity and Facts!"

Gentlemen, and I use that in the most progressive sense of the word, I am touched. Deeply touched. I have for years plundered dictionaries and studied languages, all with the idea of seeing how to lie so that people think that black is white communicate the inviolate truth of the Progressive Weltanschaaung.

Our vision is one of calculated deceit for the the capricious and arbitrary exercise of as much power as possible educating the People to act any way we want the goddamned sheep to act, bleating in anger at the right as we lead them to slaughter in ways that affirm their individual selfhood and their right to be made stupid for our benefit toward complete self determination.

In this way we are the champions of freedom of consequences of our actions.

It is our tastes which count, Comrade, our tastes. For what are ethics but being judgmental? And ethics are such hard work, and we do not want to impose hard work on people because they might get uppity and self-reliant. And tastes are <i>so</i> much more useful than ethics. Ethics are old-fashioned in that they point to something bigger than the current consensus of opinion. While tastes--tastes!--can change at will. Tomorrow's inviolable truth is in today's lab, to be focus-group tested tonight to be released tomorrow. Ethics? Aristotle? Plato? Kant? Popper? It is to laugh. Much better <i>The Nation, The New York Times</i>, and </i>The Washington Post</i>.

...Bruno. Bruno! How many times have I told you that when you line the parrot's cage <i>turn the masthead down!</i> The last time Pinch was here he saw that damned bird take a dump on his precious paper and passed out. I had to wave a pair of Justice Brennan's underwear under his nose to bring him round, and you know what the house smells like after that. Bruno. Bruno! <i>Are you listening to me?</i>

Commissar Theocritus wrote:

Stalin's Cat wrote:Ministry of Misinformation

I do hate, like hell I hate, to seem to be patronizing, but as one of the older, and gamier, members of the Cube, please let me inform you that by definition there is no such thing as a Ministry of Misinformation.

By definition, what the party says is GODDAMNED TRUE! If we say that two and two are five, and we do in every five-year plan, and worse, then, by damn, two and two are five. And people who don't believe that are soon minus some body parts that they were once attached to.

The source of misinformation is <i>The New York Times, Washington Post</i>, CBS, NBC, and that cave of the moonbat de moonbats, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC. But it will <i>never</i> do to identify it as misinformation.

Because people might then know it was full of lies.

And that won't do.

My "misunderstanding" I'l be waiting out front with my overnight bag for the Black Raven to rescue me. Please ensure the ticket to the Ministry of Love is reserved for me. A thought criminal often times doesn't know they are a thought criminal. So fortunate are we have such good shepards that look out for the collective. Since information is constantly being "updated" to the current level of the peoples understanding we all need a collective insight. I just recieved my latest copy of the Newspeak dictionary. It's much thinner than the last edition. "Mis" anything has been omitted. Soon, very soon comrades there will be no language, just obedience. Double plus good! Please rescue me from my thoughts!

In view of this unanimous discussion, the Party has unanimously decided to name it...

The Ministry of Unanimity.

This news is expected to receive a unanimous approval from The People(TM). Talking points have been dispensed to the unanimous media through the usual channels.

Red Square wrote:In view of this unanimous discussion, the Party has unanimously decided to name it...

The Ministry of Unanimity.

This news is expected to receive a unanimous approval from The People(TM). Talking points have been dispensed to the unanimous media through the usual channels.

I heartily concur and am now clapping (for the period of at least 100 minutes)

Stalin's Cat, of course we shall rescue you from your thoughts for thoughts are bad. Thoughts can lead to thougtcrime. Thoughtcrime leads to hard time, which can lead to down time. Terminal down time.

And Red, of course we shall have a Ministry of Unanimity. Although don't you think that we ought to have a spontaneous, flash-mob demand for a Ministry of Unanimity? After all, if that doesn't happen then we're in the same position as those wondering what happened before the Big Bang? How do we get before the Singularity?

But rest assured. Comrade Dr. Theocritus has a way.

Joe Biden has willed it.

Red Square wrote:In view of this unanimous discussion, the Party has unanimously decided to name it...

The Ministry of Unanimity.

This news is expected to receive a unanimous approval from The People(TM). Talking points have been dispensed to the unanimous media through the usual channels.

Huzzah! Now, how are we supposed to address Comrade Dr. Theocritus? Comrade Minister Dr. Theocritus? Minister Comrade Dr. Theocritus? Minister Dr. Comrade Theocritus?

--
ZB

if the position was the "Facilitator of Unanimity" he could be Commissar Doctor Theocritus, FU.

It depends, Zampolit, it depends. If all goes well, and I can keep my heel on Pupovich's head and continue to hold those photos over Meow's head, then I expect, after the Ascension and Anointment of the Chosen One, PBUH, to be known as Herr Doktor Commissar Theocritus, Who Sitteth at the Right Hand of The One.

You've been strangely quiet lately, though. Did that talk with Pupovich go well?

It did go well. I did like you said and swatted his nose repeatedly with a rolled up newspaper. He finally stopped humping Michelle N'dedgeh Obama's leg. Sadly, he did piddle on her very expensive woven rug made of the flesh of aborted fetuses.

There is reason I have been quiet as of late.

I've been in Richmond all week trying to get Meow out of the slammer again. Don't ask me what he did this time, because I do not know. Curious how everyone saw nothing. To be honest, I don't want to know. I could not even find out where Comrade Gov. Kaine (S-VA) has him locked up. The good Comrade Gov. is pissing me off. And it is not a good idea to piss off a high ranking member of the Central Committee™. I'm giving him until 8a.m. tomorrow morning or I am going down there with 2 of my young proteges', Maxim and Ludmila, and we going to hold his eyebrows hostage until he delivers one Chairman Meowsevich S. Punchenko to me.

--
ZB

Comrades! The Black Raven just dumped me off. In order to save fuel they didn't bother slow down. They in good party fashion opened the door for me and gravity did all the work! The only down side is my head hurts from the electroshock thearapy. Luckily the pavement where I landed had been freshly painted so as to prevent my skull from damaging the peoples avenue!
Now that all unauthorized thought has been purged I feel more as a part of the collective than ever before!
I was informed that since I turned myself over to the NKVD that the reward wil go to paying off my permanant residence in the Peoples Memorial Square! They had to make sure my organs were still viable for recycling. They think of everything! You know, I never knew how guilty I was! I was sreaming at the Peoples Court that I was the most guilty! The other guy was not convincing enough and he recycled himself on the peoples Bayonet. How lucky he was. I have a new assignment in the Salty Springs Workers Retreat! The train leaves yesterday, I can't wait.

Red Square wrote:In view of this unanimous discussion, the Party has unanimously decided to name it...

The Ministry of Unanimity.

This news is expected to receive a unanimous approval from The People(TM)...

I have discussed the matter with myself and have come to the unanimous decision that we agree with the Party's unanimous decision. In unity, we solute the Party's choice of the title of The Ministry of Unanimity.

Now if we could get the ignorant right-wingers to see past their divisive hegemonic policies, we might just get somewhere.

It is good to see State Approved Mathematics and Statistical Pollings working for the benefit of propaganda for us common folks who don't know any better. Rotten Tomatoes are Red for a reason. I am going to break some rules though and enter into independent thought for a second - could Tomato math be the same type of math that is on the liberal, uh, I mean State Sanctioned TV every night on every network?

I loved An American Carol as did the crowd that I saw it with giving it much applause and laughter throughout.

Great Stalin's Ghost! I wasn't supposed to have said that right? Where's my cone of silence?

Too late... Just say Nyet Nyet Nyet to American Carol.

Prepare your shovel, you will be needing it....

I saw American Carol last week and thought it was pretty funny. Of course, I've always like Zucker's brand of humor.

This reaction doesn't surprise me at all. Would anyone here have expected anything different? Remember when South Park was the hippest thing around? Then, when folks started looking past the language, scatological humor and apparent sacrilegious aspects, they started realizing that there was a serious and somewhat right-leaning, libertarian thread running through it. While they still do pretty well, needless to say that Stone and Parker aren't exactly the critical darlings they used to be.

Commissar Theocritus wrote:Dr. Halliburton, I must confess that these days I have trouble with the phrase "fellow travelers." It sounds too elitist. Well, hell we are elitist. But too many people know that the only traveling we do together is to Davos, Bali, and Jackson Hole.

How can "fellow travelers" be less elitist? It is the ultimate expression of equality. Compare this to McSane"s "Straight Talk Express" or whatever he calls his discriminatory band that would make those who do not engage in "straight talk" or what we would call ThoughtCrime™, different?