Note: (This is a letter I sent to a friend, a very strong supporter of Michael Moore. Tell me what you think.)


I wanted to point something out to you that was interesting on Moores web site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/). If you haven't looked, look at the picture labeled "United States of Canada/Jesusland" (See Attached) and tell me what you think that means.

Now correct me if I'm wrong (first I want to reiterate that I DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH!!!) but didn't Kerry via for the same religious votes? We can both agree attacking people for there culture, skin colour and RELIGION is not only ignorant but morally wrong. Again correct me if I'm wrong but isn't saying everyone in the south voted for bush because "they are bunch of bible belters" like saying "they just voted for him because there a bunch of niggers?" (READ ON BEFORE YOU GET ANGRY) Your really could say the same thing... want to know why. Here I'm going to do what Moore does and quote you some statistics.

This is easy. Here is a link to the US Census site. This page tells you where the highest concentration of Blacks in the US is. If you scroll down a little on the first page there is a little bar graph.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-541.pdf

Question, where is the black concentration? I'm pretty sure it's in the area Moore applied the stereotype "Jesusland."

Do you see what I'm pushing at? Not only is Moore promoting anti-religious and anti-cultural rhetoric, he is also promoting racism. Look deeper at this man please. I know you like him and Bush is a bad person, but see under the sheep's clothing and observe the wolf. He is as evil as Bush; he has made millions off the same misery that Bush has made millions. His end does not justify the means. To put simply this man is an opportunist.

Your a smart woman and that's the only reason I present you with this conjecture. Please take no offence to it. I am only trying to say, take what this man says with a grain of salt.

Labels such as "Jesusland" are the same as many anti-semitic labels placed on Jews and remember they were killed in Nazi Germany for there RELIGION. Anti-religious rhetoric have the same negative effects as racist ones do, obvious or not.

Moore would capture my attention more if he chose to re-educate those wayward voters with kind words and hard facts. Not lashing out and calling them ignorant Christians.

well put

it's good. you could go on for days about the guy, but i like the himmler/anatomy of fascism angle. i usually can't stand to listen to that intellectual snake-oil peddler from michigan state long enough to actually catch stuff like the fact he's systematically isolating and dehumanizing the christians-that's as bigass warning flag.

psst..did you have time to check out any of the hayek stuff on socialism? it's good.

I am indeed humbled by the intellect of your letter.

Next time change the "there" (place) to their (person). Not a put down, I just don't know if English is your first language or not. It sees to be an issue for some; with English as a second language. Hell it's an issue here too.

(Her Response)

Considering only 12% of the voting population (as of 2002) was black, take
into account some of those were young voters ( who, chances are, voted for
Kerry) I don't lump them into the mass Jesusland that you're talking about.
I can't find updated records on that yet, but I'm sure they will be posted
soon. The majority of voters, 75%, are non-hispanic white people.
As well, the majority of voters are more educated, married and richer. That
rules out a huge number of blacks, since the majority of them have basic
high school education, the majority are not married and their income,
especially women, is on the average, low.
I think you are mis-directed in your anit-black statement. When Michael
Moore blames the bible pumping majority for voting in Bush, he's right.
These are definately god-fearing men and woman that look at Bush as a better
god lover than Kerry. I think it's fair to say that the voters that voted
Bush, voted on religion and fear, not fact. Is that a great way to vote? I
don't think so. Yet, that's obviously what the majority of the voters
think. You can't argue with that. The majority of voters were white. I
don't think he's anti-white. Or are you going to say that he is?
Is he anti-religion? I think he's trying to say that religion isn't the
only basis to cast your vote. If you really looked at the bigger picture,
Bush's faults far-outweigh his "honk if you love god" stature.
Finally, I think Michael Moore has desperately tried to educate the public.
I know you hate him, but have you read his books? Is there a reason that
his Stupid White Men stayed on the best sellers list for so long? Doesn't
that show you that people are starving for a different perspective than CNN?
It's funny, because my Mom has a problem with gay people. She says it's ok
to be gay, but not really. I see her as a reflection on a lot of older
Americans. Young when world war 2 was going on, lived a life that
was...seemingly kinder and gentler than our time. Voting on a different
basis than what the younger people vote on. Older people WAY outvote the
younger people. Older people vote based on ideals and beliefs, I think
younger people vote on facts.
Anyhow, I'm not changing my mind on Michael Moore. I think he's over the
top, I think he likes to hear himself talk, but I think he is representing
such a large group, that we will see them become the majority.

(My Response)

Impressive, I have a big grin on my face. You are correct but failed to see my point or perhaps you did see my point but I still feel the need to clarify what I have said. I wasn't mis-directed in my black statement, here let me put it this way with one of your quotes.

"The majority of voters, 75%, are non-hispanic white people.
As well, the majority of voters are more educated."

Do you see what you've just said?

"Is he anti-religion?"

Yes, most definitely. Anyone who would systematically isolate and dehumanize the Christians; that's as bigass warning flag. My statement about Blacks was on purpose generlized and misguiding. Just like Moores are, to categorically lump "Christians" into one group dehumanizes them and puts a easy label to target a group of individuals. Did you know the Orthodox Jew's voted for Bush as well? More than two-thirds (69%) of Orthodox Jews voted for Bush. Better put a label on them as well. Whatever state, county or region they come from is obviously Semite land and we are over here in the elite United States of Canada. See what I'm pushing at? No matter how popular his books are the underlying message is what matters.

Another example is the fight against terrror. Are all Mulsims terrorists? The US media has a bad habit of painting all Muslims as terroists. Do I really need to explain this any further to you?

All I'm saying applying labels, even if your message before was right, is wrong. Any respect I had for Moore was completely lost when he put up that war like boundary setting picture. You don't think people like Moore were behind Hitlers campaign of death? I'll give you a couple names to think about: Leni Riefenstahl, Hans Fritzsche, Dr. Goebbels. All three with the same misguided fervor as Moore all thought their message was the right one, and they influenced many millions.

Quote:

---

psst..did you have time to check out any of the hayek stuff on socialism? it's good.

---

Not yet, I'm probably going to read that tomorrow and the theory-of-reciprocity.com that tantas' Daddy wanted me to check out.

Thanks for the insight. She seems to be a very strong opioned lady, wrong but a good mindset.

I agree with you to a point about MM. But I don't think it's a matter of intellectual self-importance as much as moral self-importance. So he bases his documentary style on the Hannity/Rush/Fox model of propaganda: go for the gut, facts be damned. The means don't really matter, only the ends. Problem is America, white males in particular, doesn't want to hear his message no matter how you package it. That's where the left wing and the Democratic Party got it wrong.

i'd really like to see andrea dworkin in a gag-factor/meatholes deal.

yo zen, you probably saw it, but the nyt book review this week had a page or 2 about a new book on the dude in your avatar. it looked pretty good.

her response:
I know you hate him, but have you read his books? Is there a reason that
his Stupid White Men stayed on the best sellers list for so long? Doesn't
that show you that people are starving for a different perspective than CNN?

smutmutant comments:
That's why Fox News exists. CNN plays to to the people on Moore's side of the fence. I NEVER watch CNN, it has NO integrity or impartiality. Some people love to bash Fox, but these same people tend to overlook the CBS & ABC dirty tricks & tainted perspective. Look at Walter Cronkite, the guy's recent liberal behavior has besmirched his career imo. Dan Rather proven to a be a leftist clown, as is Peter Jennings . Sadly, Brokaw was ready to inaugurate Kerry, but I think he's got the most "journalistic integrity" out of the Big 3 network figurehead anchors. btw, fuck Moore's books they're probably ghost written anyway.