NFL ratings are collapsing


Vox Day highlighted the simple fact that not only is the decline in NFL ratings continuing, but it is accelerating.

Take a look at the year-over-year comparisons to key games during week 11 involving elite franchises in the playoff hunt:

  • Thursday Night Football: TEN-PIT -36%
  • Early Doubleheader: KC-NYG -39%
  • Late Doubleheader: NE-OAK -22%

This has huge implications for NFL advertisers:

 It’s already being estimated that NFL advertisers have lost over $500 million due to the ratings decline, and that is when they were in the 20 percent year-on-year range.

Vox ties the NFL’s decline to SJW infestation of the league. While I don’t necessarily disagree with it, in many ways the NFL’s current problems come down to one factor.

For far too long, the NFL took its success, and its fans, for granted.

Rather than finding a franchise for Los Angeles after the Rams and Raiders left in 1994, the NFL 1) used LA as a negotiating chip so that team owners could strong-arm cities into using taxpayer funds to build bloated stadiums, and 2) played regular season games in London and Mexico City, while dangling the possibility of setting up teams in those cities. In the name of safety, the NFL diluted the rule book by increasing penalties on supposedly questionable hits by defenders, putting them in near-impossible situations when trying to play a game that should be simple. Meanwhile, playing games on Thursdays actually increases the risk of injury for players. Further, Roger Goodell has put the league in a terrible negotiating position by how it handled concussions.

Add in the SJW infestation, best exemplified by players kneeling during the national anthem*, et voila, the NFL’s popularity is imploding.

I don’t know how the NFL is going to turn this around. But I have to confess feeling somewhat satisfied that this far-too-smug of a league is being brought down a notch or two.

*While it is certainly obnoxious that the Defense Department has subsidized displays of patriotism during the national anthem,

Not all gifts are good

Gift or curse? Over the past few days, I am afraid I have identified something within my personality that is a cross between a talent, a gift, and a curse. On at least two occasions, I have had conversions that have gone along the following lines:

  • I state a position on a particular topic.
  • Someone else states an opposite position on the same topic.
  • We find ourselves at an impasse.
  • I make a remark so tangential so as to sound arbitrary.
  • The other person responds with a caustic remark that indicates a dark soul.

I was surprised by both outcomes. However, the common theme between both folks is that each have an extremely hostile attitude towards those who are: a) Christian and b) believe that each individual has a natural right to defend themselves (a la Second Amendment). In many ways, what I have experienced is similar to how leftists react to Trump. His alpha behavior brings out the worst of his opponents, much to the left’s dismay, and everyone else’s delight. While Trump doesn’t necessarily act so as to lead to their ridiculous responses, he doesn’t really care how foolish they look, either. It would be one thing if instances such as these would lead those who make really nasty remarks an opportunity to look in the mirror and reflect on the state where they are. However, my experiences has been none who have found themselves in this trip have been either willing or able to do so. I honestly do not know what to do with this observation. I am not intentionally baiting these folks into making their remarks, yet the remarks, indeed, are made. What I do know is the last thing I want to do is purposefully bait people into making nasty remarks. Because if I were to do so, the other person’s soul may not be the only one that’s black.  

The Narrative must die so that civilization may live.

Civilization without The Narrative

For those of us who yearn to live in civilized society, there is this gnawing feeling that society is not well-ordered because the framework in which it functions is not well-ordered. In fact, there is a clear sense that the framework is based on nothing but a basket of lies. That is because the framework upon which contemporary society rests is The Narrative.

Vox Day describes the Narrative in his book SJWs Always Lie in this way:

The Narrative is the story that the SJWs want to tell. It is the fiction they want you to believe; it is the reality that they want to create through the denial of the problematic reality that happens to exist at the moment. And there is no one definitive Narrative. Instead, there are many Narratives, all of them subject to change at any time, thereby requiring the SJW who subscribes to them to be able to change his own professed beliefs on demand as well.

My issue with Day’s description of the Narrative isn’t that it is too broad; if anything, it is not broad enough. SJWs are merely foot soldiers for the ruling elite. Politicians, crony capitalists, lazy academics, mainstream journalists, and the like ultimately benefit from the many Narratives, because they justify their continuing control over society. However, these Narratives are based on the flimsiest of reasons, and in far too many cases, lies.

Narratives may be helpful to those in power, but they ain’t no way to run a civilization. If falsehood is the basis of power and authority, the simple result is continuous conflict and violence across society. Stefan Molyneux, in his book The Art of the Argument, summarizes the challenge well:

In the hurly-burly of human interactions, we will always have disagreements, which is nothing to be upset about, as these productive conflicts produce the very sparks of progress. The fundamental question is: how will we resolve these disagreements? Historically, two “answers” have been implemented – fundamentalist religiosity, and government power. The third alternative – far more civilized – is The Argument, the reasoned debate, the honest willingness to submit to the higher standards of reason and evidence.

In the absence of this mutual surrender to a higher standard, we end up surrendering to lower standards – superstition, government force, bullying, intimidation, sophistry, you name it. In human society, it is literally The Argument – or else.

We all possess an animalistic side that seeks power over others, over resources. Curbing this side is the essential task of civilization, and the only tools it has at its disposal are philosophy, reason, evidence, and empiricism – the anti-madness magic of clear and critical thinking. We either surrender to facts, or we must be forced to surrender to each other. We are either dominated by reality, or by force and lies. As the old song says, you have to serve somebody.

In the current conflict between The Argument or The Narrative, The Narrative is the prevailing force throughout society.

And what havoc has it wrought.

The Narrative’s primary strength is it is impervious to The Argument. It could care less about reason and evidence. Rather, it seeks the highest rhetorical ground from which to destroy its intellectual opponents, otherwise known as enemies. To those who convey The Narrative, what matters isn’t finding the truth, but holding power.

Such Narrators see interactions with intellectual opponents in martial terms because to them, engagement with such opponents is not a dialogue but a battle to win. Vox Day observed that the Narrator’s primary tool is to play upon the emotions of their audience to get them to agree with The Narrative in question. Arguments per se don’t work with them; narratives, stories, and fairy tales do.

Does that mean that all is lost to stories and fairy tales based on nothing but lies? By no means! Rhetoric needs to be met with rhetoric as fire needs to be met with fire. In a conflict set in the world of ideas, bad ideas communicated through Narratives need to be mocked, scolded, jeered, and just plain old rejected.

However, rhetoric that confronts The Narrative must be based on truth. The Argument needs to support any narrative that attacks The Narrative. Otherwise, there is the risk that, just as in The Who’s We Won’t Be Fooled Again, the new boss is the same as the old boss, and society operates on just another set of lies.

That does not mean Narrative-crushing rhetoric can’t evolve over time, or be supported by arguments from other perspectives that, while complementary to one’s world view, is not wholly consistent with the author. On the contrary. Honest conversations between such voices can only help strengthen their respective positions while sharpening the attacks against those lies that they commonly abhor.

For far too long, the ruling elite have been able to maintain power while the purchasing power of money continues to decline, foreign wars continue unabated, migration patterns suffocate already-suffering welfare states, poverty and homelessness increase in both town and country, and high taxes and bloated administrative states throttle the entrepreneurial spirit. These antisocial forces have been justified by many Narratives. However, the value these Narratives provide to the elite decline with each successive statement. The Age of the American Empire is nearing its end. What matters now is what will replace it. Will it be a society based on The Narrative, or The Argument?

To anyone who values the truth in any meaningful way, and is concerned about the future for their children and their progeny, there is only one side to take.

Civilization itself depends on it.

Black-ish: the latest host infected by the social justice virus

One of the few shows I have enjoyed watching over the past few years has been Black-ish. The show hinges around how ad executive Dre Johnson, who is played by Anthony Anderson, attempts to maintain his cultural identity while living in an affluent neighborhood. In many ways, Dre represented the successful American who struggled to maintain a sense of identity (and, for that matter, dignity) in an world that, notwithstanding the increasing identity politics, discourages people from attaching themselves to a broader culture. While the show has touched on several sensitive issues, particularly race, it had done so in a good-naturedly way that treated its diverse audience with respect.

Not anymore.

The premiere episode of this season, “Juneteenth”, was a thirty minute scold-fest. The show usually takes advantage of Dre’s inclination to take a superficial matter as an indication of a larger injustice. However, in this episode, his indignation never lets up and hangs over it throughout.

It began with the Johnson family watching a school Columbus Day pageant in which Dre’s elementary school-aged children, Jack and (previously pathological) Diane, are participating. Dre imagines a rap his children would perform if the play was performed according to the truth:

Everything you know about Columbus is a joke

He didn’t discover America prepare to get woke

I’m Christopher Columbus, and I’m pretty much evil

On Hispaniola, my men killed the indigenous people

You’re so brave, Columbus more than words can convey

And it’s cool how your men killed 3,000 people in one day

So let’s make one thing perfectly clear

Celebrating Columbus is celebrating a slavery pioneer

But at least you can get a great deal on a mattress


Dre then uses the “fake history” (gee, I wonder if this is meant to sound like “fake news”? Bueller? Bueller?) of the play as the pretense to ask (once again, indignantly) if black people have to celebrate white holidays, why can’t white people celebrate Juneteenth, a “black holiday”?

The rest of the episode – otherwise known as the longest twenty five minutes of my life – is then dedicated to “educating” the audience on what Juneteenth is. (Spoiler alert: it’s the day that celebrates the abolition of slavery in Texas, which occurred on June 19, 1865.)

The dialogues were horrible. Dre and Bow (and Daphne Lido, who works in the same ad agency as Dre) were woke, indignant, and condescending to every white person to whom they spoke. The white people were subservient, inarticulate, and stupid.

Meanwhile, the middle of the episode included musical numbers about how black people used to be slaves in America, how slavery is bad, and how slaves became really happy when they were emancipated. Yes, there was the mildly amusing ditty that played tribute to Schoolhouse Rock’s “I Am a Bill” (can you guess which word they replaced with bill?), but that did very little to compensate for the fact that someone thought it was a good idea for Black-ish to teach lessons that 99.867936% of Americans learned when they were five.

I don’t know how the rest of Black-ish‘s season is going to play out, and I don’t care. It has joined the NFL, ESPN, and awards shows as those entities that have succumbed to the social justice virus. Given that they have taken severe ratings and popularity hits, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what will happen to Black-ish if they continue this course.

In fact, signs of the show’s deteriorating popularity can already be observed. According to, ABC had only 4.61 million viewers of Tuesday night primetime shows, behind CBS (11.03 million) and NBC (8.73 million). At the 9pm slot, 4.69 million watched Black-ish, well behind behind Bull (10.72 million) and This is Us (10.92 million). While Black-ish had a relatively similar portion of the 18-49 year-old audience as Bull, the youth have also been watching less traditional TV over time.

However, that will not stop the social justice virus from clinging to whatever host that will accept it. Unfortunately for TV audiences who merely look to be entertained, a previously successful sitcom is the latest victim.


Demonizing normalcy

Portions of the left-wing media are buzzing about how 16-year-old Deja Foxx lit into Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) at a recent town hall meeting in Mesa, Arizona. Foxx was upset about his vote for federal legislation that allows states to not provide Planned Parenthood funds for family planning services.

While the video of the exchange between Foxx and Flake is below, I want to focus on how Foxx framed her question to him:

“I just want to state some facts,” Foxx began. “I’m a young woman; you’re a middle-aged man. I’m a person of color, and you’re white. I come from a background of poverty, and I didn’t always have parents to guide me through life; you come from privilege.”

She went on, “I’m wondering, as a Planned Parenthood patient and someone who relies on Title X, who you are clearly not, why is it your right to take away my right?”

Refinery29 reports that in an earlier roundtable, Foxx explained “why Planned Parenthood is so important to her.”

“I am a ‘youth on their own’ — meaning I don’t live with my parents or have a permanent home,” she said in a transcript provided by Planned Parenthood. “So when I needed birth control and reproductive health care, I didn’t have anyone to help me navigate the health care system.” Because she didn’t have access to her state insurance card, her care was completely covered by Title X funds, she said.

(By the way, isn’t it odd that at a time when alternative media is looking into the hideous nature of pedophilia, Planned Parenthood is asking a 16-year-old girl without a permanent home to speak about her concern about possibly losing access to birth control? )

Both the framing and substance of Foxx’s question is loaded with fallacies, facts that ought to be irrelevant, and demonization tactics.

When Foxx says she wants Title X family planning funding to continue as before, she basically wants the federal government to pay for her birth control. She is arguing she has a positive right to that, meaning someone else pays for something to which she’s entitled. However, the problem with positive rights is that other people pay for something for which they receive nothing in return. Under normal circumstances, that is called theft. True rights are negative rights, in which people have a right to not be harmed by other people.

Regarding whether Flake’s vote for the legislation was a good idea, the “facts” she cites are irrelevant. Or at least they ought to be. Who cares if she’s a woman person of color, and he’s a middle-aged man? Why should it matter that he had a stable family life, and she doesn’t? And what does it even mean to say one person is “privileged” and another person isn’t?

However, these facts matter when asking a far different question: why are you, a middle-aged white man, trying to keep a woman (girl?) of color like me down? Because that’s essentially the question Foxx asked Flake.

Once we recognize that Foxx is fighting over maintaining her positive right to birth control, the ridiculousness behind her question becomes abundantly clear. However, to maintain that “right”, another moral context needs to be created within which her ability to receive birth control makes sense. Hence, it’s bad enough that Foxx’s free birth control (to her, at least) may be taken away, but the one voting for that is everything she isn’t.


Apparently, her free goodies are far more important than living in a stable and loving family, and maintaining healthy relationships.

While it’s easy for me to criticize Foxx for her unwarranted attack on Flake, in many ways I feel sorry for her. She should have a sense of security that comes from living within a stable, loving family, but she doesn’t. Unfortunately, given her need for birth control, at sixteen, she attacks a decent man for being decent.

I cannot imagine the pain she must have incurred in her life for her to come to that position.

While she is clearly wrong in what she says, I hope that she has the chance of getting what she clearly needs and wants.


Memebuster: Science mocks religion. God responds.

I haven’t done memebusters in a while, for no other reason than Facebook memes haven’t been terribly interesting lately.

But “God” (the Facebook one, that is) got my goat, so I felt the need to respond.

“God”‘s a hoot, ain’t he.

I’ll let the LORD answer for himself.

“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
    I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
    Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
    Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
    or who laid its cornerstone
when the morning stars sang together
    and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?

“Or who shut in the sea with doors
    when it burst out from the womb?—
when I made the clouds its garment,
    and thick darkness its swaddling band,
and prescribed bounds for it,
    and set bars and doors,
and said, ‘Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
    and here shall your proud waves be stopped’?

“Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
    and caused the dawn to know its place,
so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth,
    and the wicked be shaken out of it?
It is changed like clay under the seal,
    and it is dyed like a garment.
Light is withheld from the wicked,
    and their uplifted arm is broken.

“Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
    or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
    or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
    Declare, if you know all this.

“Where is the way to the dwelling of light,
    and where is the place of darkness,
that you may take it to its territory
    and that you may discern the paths to its home?
Surely you know, for you were born then,
    and the number of your days is great!

“Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,
    or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
    for the day of battle and war?
What is the way to the place where the light is distributed,
    or where the east wind is scattered upon the earth?

“Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain,
    and a way for the thunderbolt,
to bring rain on a land where no one lives,
    on the desert, which is empty of human life,
to satisfy the waste and desolate land,
    and to make the ground put forth grass?

“Has the rain a father,
    or who has begotten the drops of dew?
From whose womb did the ice come forth,
    and who has given birth to the hoarfrost of heaven?
The waters become hard like stone,
    and the face of the deep is frozen.

“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
    or loose the cords of Orion?
Can you lead forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
    or can you guide the Bear with its children?
Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
    Can you establish their rule on the earth?

“Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
    so that a flood of waters may cover you?
Can you send forth lightnings, so that they may go
    and say to you, ‘Here we are’?
Who has put wisdom in the inward parts,[c]
    or given understanding to the mind?[d]
Who has the wisdom to number the clouds?
    Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens,
when the dust runs into a mass
    and the clods cling together?

“Can you hunt the prey for the lion,
    or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
when they crouch in their dens,
    or lie in wait in their covert?
Who provides for the raven its prey,
    when its young ones cry to God,
    and wander about for lack of food? 

Job 38:2-41

The premise that science and religion can’t co-exist with one another is idiotic. God, who created everything, is not a being that can be categorized, and therefore examined. He just Is. It is because of Him that nature is intelligible, and can be observed and understood through science.

Yet New Atheists constantly mock religion in general, and Christianity in particular, because God refuses to submit to being examined under the very particular methods of inquiry demanded by a subset of creatures that is so small, in relation to all of creation, that it is impossible to calculate.

Is it any wonder why God hasn’t responded to their demands?

That’s because we have everything we need to determine that God exists.

Hey New Atheists, you think you’re smart, right?

Figure it out.

Rock CD Review: Veracity, by Backwordz

When I was in high school preparing for a leadership position in a large school organization, a mentor provided me with very sound advice: to be a good leader, everyone in the group needs to see that you’re fair. That means that when you’re dealing with a friend in that group, you have to be much tougher with them than with anyone else. Otherwise, you run the risk of coming across as playing favorites.

It is in that spirit that I provide this review.

Backwordz, headed by singer/rapper Eric July, is rap metal band that offers a libertarian message through its music. Because of its libertarian leanings, I want Backqordz to be successful. Very successful. Such a message is sorely lacking in today’s culture, which is inundated by hedonism and social justice. Nevertheless, the last thing the libertarian movement, or Backwordz for the matter, needs is a mindless cheerleader hyping up a one-trick pony who can scream great things about liberty but can’t carry a tune.

Backwordz is no one-trick pony. It is a solid band with strong musicians performing well-crafted songs. While the majority of the songs center around libertarian themes (Praxeology, anyone?), the album also includes songs that include personal reflections.

The first impression I had while listening to the album was not its political messages, but its sound quality. The sound is clear and well-balanced among all performers, allowing listeners to headbang to their hearts’ content.

And there are some strong headbanging songs on the CD. Among the album’s strongest songs is Statism, which opens with Eric July rapping about his purpose in life, which is to “abolish all the government”.

The banging of heads ensues with a sound reminiscent of P.O.D.

There are other strong songs, including IndividualismAddict, and Let Me Live.

Snap might as well be the anthem for frustrated libertarians the world over. The song has a great punk beat with an Offspring feel. The lyrics deal with the impatience many libertarians feel when interacting with people whose lack of knowing what they’re talking doesn’t prevent them from repeating inane arguments.

I’m not in a fragile state of mind. I just don’t run away, ’cause it’s a waste of my time. I’m not in a fragile state of mind and I might get a bad rap if I so happen to snap.

As enjoyable as the music is, I’m afraid the album has one large weakness, and it relates to its main reason for being: the lyrics.

The ideas the lyrics capture are wonderful and spot on. Eric July does a tremendous job identifying what it means to live in liberty.

However, sometimes the ideas the song is trying to convey are bigger than the song itself. This problem can be seen in two ways. First, far too many verses and choruses include more words than otherwise sound “natural”. Second, the rhyming in those verses and choruses are very inconsistent.

This isn’t a problem if a listener is focusing on the underlying rhythm of the song. However, if he or she wants to listen to the words themselves, the inconsistency between a song’s lyric rhythm and rhyme and instrumental rhythm requires the listener to work that much harder to grasp the song’s message.

In many ways, this is a wonderful problem to have. July’s lyrics, which are perceptive about our currently insane political conditions and what it means to live in liberty, require people to listen and think. Those who engage with the substance within these songs will benefit, in both mind and spirit, in the long run. However, because in far too many cases the ideas July address don’t fit tightly with the songs in which they are expressed, it is still a problem. People who would otherwise resonate to a song’s ideas may not be able to given these constraints.

Notwithstanding my technical issues about the lyrics, this is a very strong debut album for Backwordz. The overall sound quality is excellent. The songs are tight and rock hard. And its message is sorely needed to be heard.

I hope Backwordz continues performing and creating new albums. What encourages me, beyond their politics and Christianity, is their hunger. A listener can tell by listening to their songs that the band wants to keep improving. To be great. If the band keeps honing their craft in all aspects, I can only think of one word to describe their destiny.


A Simple Fool’s Rock CD Rating (1-10)

Veracity, by Backwordz
Stay Sick Recordings, 2017
Sound quality: 9
Musicianship: 8
Song quality: 8
Lyric quality: 7
Overall rating: 8

UC Irvine students demand Wells Fargo branch be removed from campus

Campus Reform reports that nearly 200 UC Irvine students have signed a petition calling for Wells Fargo to be banned from the campus because it’s evil:

The petition, which is sponsored by the Black Student Union (BSU), claims that “Wells Fargo directly contributes to child abuse, slavery, discrimination, and exploitation” through its for-profit banking practices, and demands the removal of a branch located in the Student Center.

“We demand the Wells Fargo bank to be replaced with an ethically responsible financial institution that has no stakes in the investment in private prisons and anti-people ventures such as the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL),” the petition begins, explaining that “this means that we want the replacement to be a credit union, not another bank.”

Never mind that Wells Fargo contributed $281 million to charitable organizations since 2015. Wells Fargo’s financing of private prisons and the Dakota Access pipeline, in addition to being found to have engaged in racial discrimination (based on a settlement in 2012), is enough to cause the company to be bankona non grata.

What these students don’t seem to understand is that banks are in the business of making money. No profit, no bank. Loan conversations generally go like this:

Bank: How much do you want to borrow?

Company: [a big number]

Bank: Can you pay us back?

Company: Yes. [shows spreadsheet]

Bank: Ok. Here’s the money.

That’s how the real world works, boys and girls.

Kids (and Democratic politicians) nowadays think that part of doing business is determining whether a company is acting in accordance with the latest political guidelines. Yesterday it was tobacco. Today it’s private prisons, (the wrong) oil and gas, and the “fake news” alternative media. Tomorrow it’s….

Never mind. I don’t want to think about what tomorrow will look like.

If car companies were held to the same standards banks and social media companies are now, Ford would be held liable each time a getaway car is used during a bank robbery.

Seeing that Wells Fargo won’t be leaving UC Irvine anytime soon, maybe it can begin offering Kids Savings Accounts to students.

“Anne Frank Center” attempts to shame Tim Allen into silence

Last week, Tim Allen appeared on the Jimmy Kimmy Live! show. Kimmel asked Allen about his attending Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration. Clearly, Kimmel thought he was asking Allen an innocent question. However, Allen immediately became defensive, with Kimmel trying to reassure him that he wasn’t attacking him. Allen then compared today’s Hollywood to 1930s Nazi Germany.

“You gotta be real careful around here, you know. You’ll get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody believes. It’s like ’30s Germany.”

Below is a clip of the interview.

For that brief moment of honesty on a late night talk show, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect excoriated Allen for even considering comparing Hollywood to Nazi Germany.

The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect demanded an apology from actor Tim Allen after he compared life for Hollywood conservatives to living in “’30s Germany.”

That era, of course, was when Adolf Hilter rose to power and the Nazis began their campaign of mass extermination of Jews and many others they deemed undesirable. The Anne Frank Center called Allen’s comparison “deeply offensive” and said it “trivializes the horrors imposed on Jews in Nazi Germany.”

The “Last Man Standing actor said on “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Friday: “You gotta be real careful around here, you know. You’ll get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody believes. It’s like ’30s Germany.”

“Tim, have you lost your mind?” said Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center. “No one in Hollywood today is subjecting you or anyone else to what the Nazis imposed on Jews in the 1930s – the world’s most evil program of dehumanization, imprisonment and mass brutality, implemented by an entire national government, as the prelude for the genocide of nearly an entire people.”

Added Goldstein: “Sorry, Tim, that’s just not the same as getting turned down for a movie role. It’s time for you to leave your bubble to apologize to the Jewish people and, to be sure, the other peoples also targeted by the Nazis.”

There’s nothing like berating someone for making an honest comment that makes the very point Allen was trying to make.

There are two general points I’d like to make.

First, this “Anne Frank Center” has nothing to do with the Anne Frank House and Museum in Amsterdam, Holland. Rather, it uses Anne Frank’s name as a cover for yet another progressive outfit.

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, the U.S. national organization in the worldwide network of Anne Frank organizations, addresses civil and human rights across America. Through educational programs and grassroots organizing, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect calls out prejudice, counters discrimination and advocates for the kinder and fairer world of which Anne Frank dreamed.

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect is a progressive voice for social justice, fighting hatred of refugees and immigrants, Antisemitism, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, bias against the differently abled and any other hate that runs counter to American promise of freedom. In addressing the civil and human rights issues of today, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect has developed contemporary advocacy techniques that incorporate historic lessons from Anne Frank’s life and the Holocaust. By applying those historic lessons to current issues, the organization works to make the Holocaust relevant to successive generations of Americans. – My emphasis

That’s right, folks. The Anne Frank Center is just one more progressive voice that uses the Holocaust as a cover to call people they don’t like antisemitic, sexist, racist, Islamophobic, and so on.

Second, what Allen was clearly referring to was the political dogma that many in Hollywood chant, and the consequences of differing from that dogma. All one has to do is watch Meryl Streep’s speech at the Golden Globes, and Mel Gibson’s and Vince Vaughn’s reaction to that speech, to see what that dogma is.

Frankly, it’s disgusting that someone would even consider using the suffering the Jewish people endured during World War II as a blunt instrument to shame others into silence.

If anything, Steven Goldstein ought to apologize to Tim Allen. After all, Allen works in Hollywood, and has a far better sense of the dynamics in that town than he does.

Goldstein’s outburst is not helping his presumed fight against anti-semitism one bit.

If anything, he is helping to make Allen’s point far better than he can possibly realize.