My Son,

You may not like those old movies and books, but you need them. Why? Because old movies and books were made before liberalism took over.

The old moviemakers and authors were free to show normal human beings doing normal things. They were free to show life as it should be. They didn’t have to worry about being punished by social justice warriors, and they were not brainwashed by liberalism. Yes, some old movies and books get things wrong, but overall they are the best place to see how things should be. Contemporary liberalism has distorted and perverted our way of life. If you want to see how life should be, the best place to look is old movies and books.

That’s why the liberals (if they have any brains) don’t want you to like old books and movies.

Yes, the old movies were (mostly) in black and white, with lame special effects and old-fashioned people doing old-fashioned stuff. And yes, it’s hard work reading books that have few graphics and no embedded videos. Yes, the contemporary stuff is cooler.

Too bad. If you want to free your mind you have to escape the liberal madness every now and then. You need to see human beings being normal. Like vegetables, old movies and books may at first turn you off. But they’re good for you.

There are some contemporary works that speak truth. I am saying that you also need the great works of the past. And I refer mostly to fiction, which when done right nourishes our spirit by giving us a picture of life as it should be.

*

Maybe you need more explanation before you understand what I’m saying. Here goes:

Remember that liberalism is our enemy. We didn’t start this fight, but liberals hate us and our way of life. Individual liberals can be decent people and liberalism sometimes has benefits, but the overall thrust of liberalism is war against our people and our ways.

Liberalism is also false. The liberal belief system is fundamentally defective because it ignores the God of the Bible and attacks the traditional forms of knowledge which mankind has discovered, at great effort, over thousands of years.

And liberals have mostly taken over. They rule the governments, schools and colleges, the media, many churches, and most private organizations (the corporations, the Red Cross, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the academic societies, etc.) When people talk or write or make videos and movies, they mostly teach liberalism. Just about everything we see teaches liberalism. If we don’t keep up our guard we’ll be fooled into liberal thinking.

Surrounded by lies, how can a young man come to know how the world really works and how people really should behave? Two of the most important ways are old movies and old books. Made before the liberals took over, they show a more realistic picture of the world.

In the old movies and books most men are masculine and most women are feminine. In the old movies and books Christianity is generally honored as the religion of our people. In the old books and movies divorce, adultery and abortion are shameful. In the old books and movies white Americans do not welcome masses of immigrants and refugees or apologize for their “white privilege” or their “xenophobia.” In the old movies and books, the madness of liberalism only lives in a few villains and other odd characters.

It’s true that some contemporary movies reflect the beliefs of ancient times. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example, does not depict Éowyn of Rohan as a modern movie would. If those movies had been made according to liberalism Éowyn would have been as great a warrior as Aragorn, if not greater. Feminism demands it.

Instead, the Lord of the Rings filmmakers were (mostly) true to Tolkien’s vision, and true to pre-modern ways of thinking. But this is an exception. You must mostly look to the past for literature or entertainment which shows a healthy society.

*

An old novel or movie shows how people of that time understood the world, human society, and the human soul. The author or the filmmaker had to present a story which his reader or audience would recognize and agree with. If a filmmaker of the 1930’s, for example, had made an action movie in which a small woman consistently defeats in physical combat men much larger than her the audience would have been disgusted at the sight of an unfeminine and therefore repellant woman achieving totally implausible feats. But these days the filmmaker has to assume that his peers and the critics will demand feminism, along with the rest of the liberal package: sexual ambiguity, multiculturalism, religious skepticism, and so on.

Young people have always had a preference for the new: It’s how the next generation establishes its identity by rebelling against the ways of their parents. And in contemporary times new technology gives the modern young man a feeling of greater power. By using technology to do what previous generations couldn’t, the modern young man feels stronger and wiser than his parents’ generation. When he looks at old movies he sees weak technology and strange fashions, all presented in low-definition, drab black and white. When he reads old books (which he rarely does), the modern young man sees people doing and saying things to which he cannot relate. He naturally assumes that there is nothing there that is good for him.

The liberals hope you will be repelled by old things. They hope you will prefer new things. That way you won’t discover what people knew before liberalism took over. All you will know is the madness of liberalism.

For the contemporary young man (or woman), the greatest value of the classic works of art and literature, the books and movies of the past, is that they show a generally sane world. Showing men and women relating one to another in a sane way. Showing families living together in a sane way. Showing businesses, schools, churches, functioning in a sane way. Showing people living sane lives, not blighted with the insanity of liberalism surrounding them and pressing in on them from all sides. This is the antidote to, the inoculation against, liberalism.

*

I want to highlight one area where all this is especially important: love and sex. As a teenage boy you may feel that this is just squishy girly stuff, but it’s very important that you not be deceived about love and sex.

The liberals have two basic goals in their campaign of disinformation about love and sex. One is to deny that man and women are fundamentally different. The other goal follows from the first: To deny that there are right ways and wrong ways for a man and a woman to relate to one another.

These goals follow from liberalism’s stated goal of creating a world where every individual person has maximum personal freedom: He can be a he or a she, or some other personal sexual invention. He can be “gay,” straight, transgender, or whatever. He can be white, black, Asian, or any other racial identity he chooses. He can be an engineer, a babysitter, a fighter pilot, a seamstress, or have any other profession he chooses. He can join a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or an association of atheists. He can think of himself, as a human, a dog, a fish, or any other type of life he chooses.

[That’s their stated goal. Their actual goal is slavery and damnation.]

In all these choices, the liberal wants the individual to be free from ridicule or any other hardship which might by caused by his making a choice that those mean conservatives call bad or unnatural.

And a world like this can only be achieved (if it’s even possible, which is doubtful) by massive control of society, so that normal people are forced to act as if they approve of all this freedom, and are also forced to supply the goods and services needed to cater to the whims of people with mental disorders.

Back to love and sex. It’s most important to know that man-woman differences are real, caused mostly by the facts of the human body and soul, not by social conditioning. And then you need to know the proper way for a man and a woman to relate.

And this proper way is not just a matter of knowing the rules. You need to know the rules, but they cannot guide you in every possible situation. The only way to know how to behave as a normal human being is to see it happening before your eyes. You see your father and mother relating one to another, but that’s not enough. You also need to see boys and girls, and then men and women, relating correctly one to another. And you also need to see how courtship should be done.

“Courtship,” of course, looks like an old-fashioned word. Something they did back in the day, whereas now we “date.” But dating means nothing more than looking for (if you are a man) female companionship. That “companionship” could be anything from prostitution to matrimony. “Dating” could mean anything. “Courtship,” even if contemporary man rarely uses the word, means that you intend to get honorably married.

So where can a young man see examples of men and women relating one to another in proper ways? Sometimes it does happen in real life, but you can’t depend on it. At best, it comes and goes. The liberals have created a world in which we often see men and women relating to each other in unnatural and bizarre ways. And young people who see only these unnatural relations come to think of them as normal and acceptable, which they are not. The only dependable places to find good examples of male-female relations, and to be nourished by these examples, are old books and movies.

Not all old movies and books, of course. There are many bad old books and movies, and they are bad for various reasons. But in the old days, the liberals were not in charge. In the old days, the author of a bestselling novel or a popular movie was able, if he wanted, to show human life, including man-woman relations, as it should be. He did not have to face the wrath of the politically-correct thought police if he correctly portrayed male or female nature, or if he depicted a man and a woman relating well one to another.

Also, when an old movie or book shows a man and a woman relating one to another in a bad way, you can usually it’s bad. Artists have always known how to portray something so that the viewer or reader will think it’s bad. Old movies and books often show bad man-woman relations, but you can tell that they’re bad if you pay attention.

Nowadays all that is gone. Telling the truth about subjects as important as love and sex can get you in a lot of trouble. That’s bad enough, but the movie-going (and book reading) public also expects their entertainment to agree with their beliefs, and these days much of the public agrees with the liberal way of life, with its feminism, its atheism, its multicultural disrespect of traditional America and Americans, and so on.

So almost all contemporary movies fail to show proper male-female relations. They do not show girls and women being womanly and boys and men being manly. It’s only when they portray the past, or when they film a known work from the old days (such as a Shakespearean play), that Hollywood can get away with showing proper male-female relationships. Even then, there is no guarantee. The modern moviemaker often wants to reinterpret the past so that present-day liberals will approve of what they see.

And I’m not talking about out-and-out pornography. Porn in mainstream movies is on the rise, but I’m talking about non-pornographic movie depictions of love and romance. The danger here is that movies depict these non-sexual encounters in the wrong way. Men and women should not relate in these ways.

So what exactly is the problem? The basic error of Hollywood and the rest of the politically-correct world of the media is showing women acting like men and men acting like women. And the second error is to show normal marriage as something undesirable because it restricts the freedom of women. (Being liberals, they don’t care about the men as men. They may care about the men if they minorities, or sexual deviants, or foreigners, and so on, but they don’t care about them as men. They don’t want to portray a confidently masculine man.)

Of course, Hollywood often portrays sexual immorality as acceptable, and even good. But that’s not its greatest sin. We Christians are taught to be wary of sin, and when we see it on the screen or read it in books, we know it is sin. But when Hollywood creates a world where women receive honor for rejecting their traditional duties of caring for husband, children and home, and instead compete with men for jobs, careers and prestige, we face a perversion that Scripture does not directly address. There have always been women (and men) who rebel against their natural duties, and Scripture does address this sin. But there has never before been a nation like modern America, in which this rebellion is encouraged by the authorities.

So what do we see in contemporary movies and television? Women more competent and confident than men. Women rejecting wifedom and childrearing so they can compete with men in the world of accomplishment. Women with harsh, masculine personalities.

And those are the women Hollywood thinks are good. Media still shows a few feminine women, but they are not shown approvingly. Feminine women are counterrevolutionaries, traitors to the liberal cause. The audience must be made to dislike them.

And what about the men? There are masculine men in the media: The action movie heroes. But they can only express traditional masculinity in one way: physical aggression against evildoers. If the action hero were to require that his wife honor him as the head of the family, or if he were to require his family to honor Jesus Christ, he would not be the hero of a Hollywood movie.

*

We’re in a war, and in this war propaganda is the enemy’s main weapon. We cannot avoid all exposure to his propaganda but we can become immune to his poison by consuming its antidote: The great works of the past.