My biggest complaint against progressives—especially those on the liberal side of politics is that they think so small—that they are so anchored to the earth that they are boldly proud of it. Let me tell you dear reader, when you hear a person like Arthur Rosenfeld seen below—who writes for the Huffington Post—a bastion of progressive thought—run in the opposite direction. Stay away from them as best you can. Their thoughts are like a sickness. I knew it would only be a matter of time before progressive types realized that the latest Christopher Nolan film Interstellar was actually an argument against progressivism—against the Arthur Rosenfeld types and that they are the villains in the story. So when they saw the film, they obviously would not like it. And Arthur Rosenfeld didn’t. I did, read my review by clicking here.
Regarding space travel versus these Taoist monk progressives who are so obsessed with their mind/body dichotomy that they stay all their lives so treacherously grounded to the earth–space to the extent that you can see the curvature of the earth easily is only 22 miles straight up. A bicycle rider could cover that distance in a couple of hours, a car could knock out that travel time in less than 15 minutes. There really isn’t much above us considering the massive amount of space that is beyond those 22 miles of atmosphere. The International Space Station orbits on average above the earth between 173 miles to 266. That is the usual distance between most major cities in the Midwest and can be covered within a few short hours of car travel time. It’s not that far—at all. Yet people like Arthur Rosenfeld think that the human mind should remain tethered to the ground so that we can align ourselves to our mind and body through Tai Chi exercises.
In college I met tons of these idiots. On the U.C. campus I used to eat breakfast every morning in Coryville at a little place right across from the Kroger store. Inside with me were many of the college professors who had the same habit before reporting to class. I would often do my morning reading which often composed of material well beyond their grasp—some of it Kip Thorne’s work. They would gather over coffee and omelets and wear their Taoist jewelry under their sport coats and argue with me over the same type of things that Arthur Rosenfeld did after seeing Interstellar, most of it playful banter until they realized they couldn’t change my mind. What I learned from my college experience was that those people in that little breakfast shop were destroying the minds of every American youth who attended their classes. They were not equipped to teach anybody anything regarding spirituality, science, or even politics when their frame of reference was rooted to progressive philosophy in such a way that the answers to life’s difficulties were not explored just 22 miles above our heads—but instead around the other side of the world and down the road in the latest government created slum.
Arthur Rosenfeld is a typical progressive—he is a mind firmly anchored to the ground much like a jealous small-minded parent who fears for their five-year old to ride a bicycle down the driveway without a helmet. He is part of that “safety first” culture when it crushes the natural spirit of adventure. Instead he offers to quiet the mind so that you can hear the voices of the earth and all its animals relegating oneself to its grim limitations like a jealous mother who cannot let go of a treasured son or daughter. After seeing Interstellar Rosenfeld wrote a remarkably small-minded review in the Huffington Post, linked below. But of that article, there were a few paragraphs that stood out as exceptionally ridiculous reminding me so intensely of those nutty U.C. college professors who used to share breakfast over arguments in Coryville and convinced me that progressives could not be helped—that they were not content to just live and let live—but desired with a military-like fervor to put shackles on the mind of mankind so to keep them within their own intellectual comfort zones. Progressives were detrimental to every mind they attempted to teach. Read those excerpts below with my comments following:
Taoist monk, author, speaker
Interstellar Is a Crying Shame
Posted: 11/14/2014 8:29 am EST Updated: 11/14/2014 9:59 am EST
Despite the marvelous special effects and the great lengths gone to by the filmmakers to imaginatively render singularities, Interstellar misses the chance to be either an inspiring or cautionary tale. Instead, the film lionizes precisely those social elements that are most reprehensible and scary, and lauds precisely those psychological traits that we must excoriate if we are truly to save our planet and survive along with it. More, instead of juxtaposing technology and consciousness, science and morality as James Cameron did in Avatar, director Christopher Nolan panders to our primitive urge to resort to fantasy rather than reality when facing the very problems that have put humanity in its current pickle.
Jim Cameron’s film, Avatar was a progressive journey against capitalist endeavor. The corporation in the film was the villain and the heroes were a bunch of natives who were plugged into the consciousness of their planet. With each failed marriage in Cameron’s personal life he moved more and more away from the logic of the truck driver he used to be—which was obvious in his early films, like Terminator, and even the Abyss and started forming his political beliefs around the pick-up lines he used on subsequent love interests. Females, because of their unique ability to have children are sympathetic to the resonance of Mother Earth and the metaphor of their children growing up and leaving them is not lost to the concept the plight of mankind leaving the earth to journey into space. When a human male wants to gain the sexual favor of a female he will often appeal to this “motherhood” aspect of females to lure them into his bed. If he likes them, he might try to marry them, and in James Cameron’s case—he went through this process many times looking for love that never really lived up to his cinematic brilliance. So he has moved toward female view points after many marriages as opposed to finding females that leaned toward him. Avatar was the result of a pick-up line that became a movie. This is why many women vote for Democrats because progressive liberals appeal to this motherhood neurosis.
Mankind is at its adolescence and space is essentially like moving out into one’s own first apartment. It doesn’t mean that we abandoned our parents on earth, but that we have to form a healthy relationship where our destiny is shaped by our own thoughts instead of the home planet. Rosenfeld is proposing that Interstellar had an obligation to accentuate how irresponsible mankind is—like the film Koyaanisqatsi—which Interstellar resembles often. Instead, Interstellar boldly declares that man’s mind is the answer to everything in the universe and this is what Rosenfeld finds so reprehensible.
To sort through the razzle-dazzle and get to what really makes this movie so reprehensible requires some straight talk about who we humans really are and are not, both in the physical and spiritual sense. Physically, we are one species among millions, living an impermanent existence against an ever-changing bio-geological backdrop. If we are unique, it is not because we are the most intelligent species on the planet (that honor likely goes to whales), nor because we are the most enduring (look to cycads and roaches instead) but because, in addition to being stunningly resourceful, creative, potentially loving and deeply spiritual, we are also the most hubristic, self-absorbed, and destructive.
Animals are collectivists; I have not seen a whale build a rocket to the moon, or a new car to speed their transit across the earth. Whales especially are a matriarchal society which is a progressive metaphor for their religion of earth worship, so it is not to be ignored that Rosenfeld uses whales as an example of the type of earthly animal species that deserves inclusion as the earth’s most intelligent species. Give me a break. Whales are wonderful; they are magnificent to look at. I respect their right to live in the ocean and not to have their mating habits infringed upon—but when a whale gains the ability to run a company and produce more than an ocean full of shit—then I might be willing to entertain the notion that whales need to be considered intelligent. But again, Rosenfeld proposes that humans are just one species and that it is our task to slow our minds down to the tiniest insect and to listen to what they have to say as an equal species.
Just yesterday I was conversing with a person and was aware of a Chinese stink bug that was crawling along the side of a table. I was careful not to lean against that table as I was trying not to bring harm to it. Well, the person I was speaking with without any ill intent leaned against the table killing the poor little insect by crushing three of its legs. It fell to the ground for a slow death completely unintentional and I felt bad for it. I tried to save it, but the insect was in a place it didn’t belong and it was crushed by man’s progress just like the millions of bugs that are smashed on the front of our cars and under our feet. To people like Rosenfeld we are supposed to limit this behavior almost to the point of non action, but in the scheme of the universe—of the potential life that is “out there” even the largest whale is of the importance of a bug. Entire species can be killed easily with a simple meteor impact into the ocean or a few degrees of temperature change induced by radiation from the sun. Only human beings have emerged with a mind to so dramatically change their fate as to be simple bugs crawling on the side of a table with life and death timed out so perfectly between revolutions of the earth around the sun. Humans have come to know themselves by how many times the earth circles the sun. To the young women who cries at her waning youth complaining about how many candles are on her birthday cake representing age 40, her crises is that the first forty times she traveled on the earth around the sun provided her with youthful growth, and the next forty will be a gradual decline into death where her body is placed into the earth to be forgotten forever—so she is sad.
There is nothing brilliant about animals when they yield to those in a pecking order who are stronger and faster than they are—or older and more experienced. When humans follow the same patterns they end up worshiping people like Rosenfeld who hope to think of themselves at the top of an intellectual pyramid in a collective based society where he can be the one to teach others to tap into that common fountain of knowledge that we share through the tiniest insect during his Tai Chi exercises. Interstellar is about leaving this corrupting behavior behind and overcoming their restrictions. In the future, it is people like Rosenfeld who have destroyed invention, destroyed education, and destroyed politics leaving mankind to scribble in the dirt waiting to die. Interstellar offers an alternative and that is why Rosenfeld disliked the movie.
Let’s stop making movies like this, or, at least, let’s stop watching them. They freeze our hearts, turn our brains to mush, and delude our children into believing in Scientism, the latest and most dangerous of man’s religions. If we are going to explore, let’s explore our spiritual landscapes in a quest for an antidote to all such fantastical belief systems. Let’s find a mindful, balanced, and harmonious alternative to hating and killing everyone and everything in the name of what we say we believe. Let’s create cinematic masterworks that exhort us to cherish the planet we have, and all the wonders upon it, rather than jettison it in favor of new turf to kill.
Here is likely the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a long time—Rosenfeld actually proposes that movies like Interstellar shouldn’t be made in a free society full of competing ideas. As much as I like Star Wars, I’m not a huge fan of the “Force,” as it reminds me too much of people like Rosenfeld who don’t quite “get it.” I can watch those movies and enjoy them taking what I like and leaving behind what I don’t. But Rosenfeld actually proposes either a boycott of Interstellar, or cutting off the ability to produce such works of art because he doesn’t like the message.
There was no proposal in Interstellar to kill another species while they were in space looking for another earth-like planet to settle on. Rosenfeld suggests that there be a kind of social cinema board who sits around and actually decides the type of content which should be made into a film. In some ways—there already is within the studio system where progressive money often does just this very thing. It is amazing that Christopher Nolan has managed to make his kind of movie in that studio environment—but if you look at a chart of how many counties in America are politically red, it is no wonder that Nolan does so well at the box office—because he makes movies for the type of people who often get ignored by progressives like Rosenfeld. The farmer/hunter from the Midwest doesn’t give a rat’s ass about some urban progressive like Rosenfeld who wants to “feel the earth” while in line at Starbucks. The farmer is in the dirt every day and the content of Interstellar is very appealing to them—“they” get it.
Rosenfeld actually attacks the premise of science which is a ghastly mistake proposing that our “spiritual landscapes” are far more important than the vast blackness just a few miles above our heads. To maintain the type of political order where progressives like Rosenfeld get to be the “leader of the pack” on earth teaching people to honor the defeated Indian tribes and all their superstitions or think that whales are the most intelligent species on earth they cannot have competition to those beliefs, so they attack anything that might disrupt their scam against the human intellect.
Nobody can point at Interstellar and not call it a visually brilliant film. It is a magnificent spectacle of science. But the negative reviews boil down to what the film invokes in those factions who want to maintain a matriarchal society on earth of mother worship instead of allowing mankind to evolve into full-grown adults creating our own destiny in space. The movie does what art is supposed to do, it brings forth discussion and invokes feelings that should be challenged if or intellects are to be massaged. I have watched many progressive films and often I enjoy parts of them. But I do not propose that those voices not be heard as Rosenfeld does. Most of the time I just don’t say anything about it unless the movie is Cloud Atlas, which I found to be absolutely, reprehensibly horrible—but even that movie I encouraged people to make their own opinion. I certainly didn’t do as Rosenfeld did with Interstellar and propose that a very good film was a “crying shame” because it did not support his stilted world view that every species align themselves behind the leadership of the earth’s most intelligent species—whales.
I keep waiting for whales to build a cool shopping mall on the bottom of the ocean, and I eagerly await the next whale feature film about their life and habitat—their latest drama about how upset their matriarchs get when they seek to change mating locations 20 miles north of their birth place instead of the traditional nesting grounds. And I can’t wait until whales send their own into space on a rocket built of sea shells using compressed water as a propulsion system. Maybe if they are really smart, which Rosenfeld believes they are, they’ll use a couple of dolphins to run smaller scout ships into orbit around Mars so they can begin to seek a new ocean planet where natives of the intellect of Rosenfeld fall in nicely to whale worship and are happy to sacrifice goats, cows and other human beings to the Gods of the ocean to keep the whales living prosperously lumbering around in peace for all eternity.
To Rosenfeld progress—the products of man’s mind is the real villain. To his religious fanaticism any attempt to supplant nature as the superior guiding force is reprehensible. If one does not yield to nature, they are harming it—so every shopping mall, every Starbucks, every movie that does not pander to this earthly belief should be attacked and ridiculed. That is the limited mind of the progressive and why I just can’t stand them. I learned to hate them while I was in college and I never yielded to their rhetoric even in small ways—and for that I am infinitely grateful. Over time, those professors found some place else to eat and left me alone—which suited me just fine. The owner of the restaurant was in distress about the many arguments we often had—and when only I was left, it brought him much pain—much like the aforementioned stink bug—a casualty of intellectual competition. The professors took their four tables of left-leaning progressive hippies and started meeting across the street at Perkins and I spent my breakfast periods alone with my books and my omelet each morning happy for the solitude. Within four months, over the summer break, the owner had to close down due to a lack of business. So I moved across the street into Perkins and those same college professors left for someplace else–again. They did not want to sit near me because I would not give them the illusion that they were right about their limited world view. So they did what they always do, they picked up their act and went somewhere among their own kind so that they could live in the illusion of their falsehood. And what happens when people spend their whole lives in that condition—they become people like Arthur Rosenfeld. The appeal for me of Interstellar would be that I could leave the earth to get away from people like that—or—that they might get on a ship and leave for some hippie planet far away—just as the college professors did at our breakfast restaurant—leaving me to enjoy my life in peace—away from their corrupt minds and small perspective.