Right Musicians Use Superior Intellect to Avoid Being Blacklisted

Right-Wing Musicians Must Be Clever, Well-Read to Promote Their Message Without Being Blacklisted by Music Industry

By: Peter Egan

It’s no secret an overwhelming percentage of the biggest names in all of showbusiness are not only left-of-center politically,  and that “outing” oneself (or being “outed”) as holding views that aren’t 100% in lock-step with the Democrat party, which has become the most extreme, left-wing, anti-American and either mentally ill of comprised entirely of sociopaths, can spell the end of one’s career, or for the very best in their industry, it will cost them money. This is true whether it be movies, television, print media, music, any other kind of acting as well as online media (written, and video).

311 NOLA

However not everyone sold their soul to get to the top of their respective industries. 311 has been a very popular band with global following that could sell out a 50,000 seat venue (mostly with people who’ve seen them in concert before and/or traveled from elsewhere in the country or world to attend the concert). They have revealed in their lyrics that while they’re not (as a group anyway) hyperpolitical, they do consistently write right-of-center lyrics for songs related to politics, typically from the view of a libertarian-leaning conservative. There are so many examples I could list here, but I’ll stick to a few obvious ones at first, then add more to the article as time permits.

From Chaos, Don’t Tread on Me, Evolver, Grassroots and Music all have songs for which I could make the argument.

Listen to DTOM, Thank Your Lucky Stars, Solar Flare and Still Dreaming. That’s four songs on one album that support my argument. DTOM, is widely known as beginning with the Gadsden flag. 311 was just ahead of the curve as it wasn’t until two full years after the album was released that the slogan was revived (among political activists) in resistance to Obama’s attempt at a Presidency.

311 in NOLA 2017

From From Chaos, listen to “Wake Your Mind Up” and “Reconsider Everything.” There would be no need to reconsider everything you’ve ever learned if the left hadn’t turned the education system and the media into brainwashing ideological tools. That’s another thing, 311 has made more than one negative reference to the media. Why do that if you agree with them?

While stopping short of admitting their views in unmistakable terms, they’ve made so many references, songs and verses in songs that support my claim (that 311 as a group leans right-of-center politically on most issues mentioned in their work), that if I were to list them all it would be nearly impossible to argue the assertion with a straight face.

I will give it to Lil Wayne for having read Ayn Rand and writing a song about Atlas Shrugged where he got Marshall Mathers to rap the lyrics of a character in the novel who represents views he personally strongly disagrees with. “Drop the World” is the song I’m referencing, and having read the book I can’t see any way every line wasn’t intentional, much less his Atlas pose in the video (0:55 second mark).

Lil Wayne Featuring Eminem: DroFrom p the World (Explicit Language)

Compare the two images below:

 

Plus, the lyrics (to me at least) are obviously Wayne rapping the character of Francisco D’Anconia with elements of Hank Rearden; with Mathers depicting John Galt (as in “Who is John Galt?” … Yeah, that John Galt). This is ironic because Galt is arguably the most right-wing character in the most right-wing book of all fictional literature throughout all of history, Mathers an unapologetic leftist. Wayne basically punked him in getting him to contribute to the most popular right-wing political hit song I’ve heard since 311’s “Don’t Tread on Me” and “Thank Your Lucky Stars.” FWIW, Atlas Shrugged was written 70 years ago about present-day America and the world.


*Spoiler Alert*

John Galt was the man who “stopped the motor of the world” / “stopped the world” (both were used IIRC) in the novel. Wayne does the post right before the first time he says “Drop the World.” The novel got it’s name because of dialog between characters in which one asked another what would happen if Atlas (the producers – taxpayers) were merely to shrug. Atlas in Greek mythology was tricked into having to bear the weight of the world on his shoulders for all eternity. Wayne’s been imprisoned on victimless crimes, and had untold tens of millions of dollars stolen from him by the government. .Make no mistake, Wayne is as right-wing as they come. In “Drop the World,” he did a masterful job of communicating that message to an audience who agrees and has read the novel, using language that someone who hadn’t read all 1,200 pages could interpret differently. Leftists can’t read more than 50 or so pages before shutting the book in horror and reburying their heads in sand. They’d rather be wrong and keep their present views than even so much as contemplate allowing a new way of thinking which inevitably require consuming factual information that totally destroys their entire world as they understand it and forces them to think. They’d rather be told what to think and blindly trust those thinking for them than face the fear of thinking for themselves.

Other bands who have written songs that would imply that at least one member of the band (whoever is writing the lyrics) is likely right-of-center in my estimation would also include Metallica (their version of DTOM was more unmistakable than 311’s), Iron Maiden, Ben Folds Five, Jurassic 5, Incubus, Slaghterhose (and each artist individually in the group) and almost all country music. Even Pearl Jam songs could be interpreted as right-of-center (Greivance is the first to come to Mind, Glorified-G as well), however they have publicly advocated left-wing positions even when lyrics suggest otherwise, so who knows with them?

Rock and Roll the Right Way

 

Truth is most probably would say the leftist position as representative of their music if asked knowing that doing so can lead to free publicity and inclusion in festivals and events at which they’d otherwise not be invited to perform. Once a person exposed to the music becomes a fan, they can listen to the words themselves and where inconsistencies exist can determine what to believe to be true.

If an artist is going to use his or her platform and publicity to advocate for a political cause or criticize another, they’d better agree with me or I won’t listen to them or support them in any way. If they keep their mouths shut and say nothing at all except with their music, I can appreciate that and enjoy that. This is especially true when you have to be smart, educated, have a plus vocabulary, have above-average processing capability and be able to use the information available to extract context and eventually meaning through a heavily encoded message with all the work to encode so only the desired audience gets it is extremely impressive and beyond any of my capabilities. I lack the creativity to encode the way these artists do such that millions of people who listen to a given song won’t think twice about it’s meaning, while the same song communicates important information to those the artist(s) is deliberately trying to reach without tipping off even one from the other side.

Robert Mann is a Pathetic Coward (An Open Letter)

Robert Mann: Disgusting Human Being, Liar and Coward

UPDATE: I’m sure no one who reads this post will be surprised to learn this but it has been confirmed that Mann is a Political Science professor at LSU. Intellectual dishonesty the likes of which Mann has displayed in his defamation of two people who’d never even heard of him is unbecoming of anyone paid by the state to teach. This guy must be terminated from the LSU faculty. He is the reason colleges and universities are cesspools of Marxism where race, gender identity and a desire to disarm law-abiding citizens trump learning.

I came upon a post by a pathetic individual by the name of Robert Mann while conducting research. The post consisted of intellectually dishonest, misrepresentations of both myself and my father. These misrepresentations were deliberate, and in my own personal case even the most cognitively-challenged individual could have figured out that the Facebook post Mann cited in an effort to attack my character was a lighthearted joke.

It’s pretty creepy to know that some weirdo that I’ve never heard of is Facebook stalking me. I’m not going to link to his site, because I don’t want to give him any publicity, but I will post my response to it below in the form of an open letter.

Coward Robert Bob Mann
Example: See “Robert Mann”

The following is an open letter to Robert Mann:

Robert Mann,

You are quite possibly the least intellectually honest person whose work I’ve ever read.

Your misrepresentation of what my father said coupled with you dragging me into it by trying to misrepresent what was obviously a lighthearted joke as a “racist comment” is as intellectually dishonest an act as I’ve ever witnessed.

For one thing, my father was absolutely right in his description of political prostitute Jay Dardenne. You totally and deliberately misrepresented what he said, and you did it with malicious intent.

You dragging me into it with yet another deliberate misrepresentation of a JOKE crossed the line.

If you can’t construct logical arguments as a means to persuade others of your political views you have no business writing or even speaking about politics.

Robert MannYou’re an angry old man and your willingness to lie and deceive is disgusting. What’s more disgusting is that low-character individuals such as yourself actually influence others. It is a sad reflection on society when someone like you is taken seriously by others.

You’re not man enough to make those same comments about myself and my father to either of our faces. If you care to prove me wrong, I would be delighted. We both know that won’t happen however… Because you’re a coward, and cowards don’t confront people with malicious, unprovoked attacks in person.

You are a lying, intellectually dishonest coward. I’d be miserable too if I had no conscience, and used lies and misrepresentations to impugn the character of people who have never even heard of you, much less wronged you in any way.

Robert Mann Sushi
This is Sushi, my now-deceased dog and best friend of 17 years. Scumbag Robert Mann used my dead dog to attack me.

I am flattered to know that you’re Facebook stalking me however. It is creepy, no doubt. But I’m more than capable of defending myself from sinister creeps such as yourself, and would welcome the opportunity to do so in person.

But seriously though, using my dead dog and best friend of 17 years as a means of attacking my character is one of the lowest, most pathetic acts I’ve ever witnessed. You really are a despicable human being.

In conclusion, you’re a loser. In the future, if you wish to attack my character with lies and misrepresentations, I kindly ask that you do so directly to me face. I have a feeling your cowardice will never allow that to happen.

Sincerely,

Peter Egan Jr.

* Update *

Unlike Mann, who wrote his libelous attacks in hopes that the subjects of his defamation would never learn of his deed, this letter was sent directly to Robert Mann via Twitter. He was notified of its existence within ten minutes of it being published.

Rather than attempt to defend his deliberate mischaracterizations and character assassination, he did what I expected him to do. He blocked me on Twitter and issued no response or defense of his sinister blog. I guess the old cliche is true that you can’t defend the indefensible.

Provided with an opportunity to explain why he felt it necessary to launch vicious personal attacks on two different people he doesn’t even know and whom he has never met, Mann took the coward’s way out. His response is fitting, and consistent with the rest of his cowardly behavior.

Robert Mann is a coward whose cowardice is his defining characteristic.

Why is Wikipedia Begging for Money?

WikiPedia Chooses Blind Communism Over Common Sense

I’d like to offer a very generous proposal to make Wikipedia financially solvent without the world’s largest online encyclopedia having to beg on street corners for spare change while unshaven and at least a week since their last shower.

Wikipedia Begging
Wikipedia has a page on Advertising. They know what it is. Like good liberals, they believe all money is for government and profits are earned in order to be given to the government.

Okay, so I took some license here with regard to the panhandling, disheveled appearance and putrid body odor, but the analogy is really not that far off the mark. At least to me, that is precisely the image that pops into my head when I see one of the world’s largest and most successful websites threatening to close down permanently due to financial shortfalls.

Of course, this should come as little surprise considering Wikipedia has relied on donations and volunteer for the duration of its existence. At some point the amount of work is inevitably going to reach the point of excess relative toward the good will and charitable nature of others.

Wikipedia could integrate advertising and within a month pay off any/all liabilities. Every monthly surplus thereafter could either be designated as profit (and Wikipedia changed from a non-profit to for-profit entity). That said, they could allow advertising and remain a non-profit entity.

Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil. So they want individual readers and editors to donate to them instead of just allowing advertisers to advertise.

They don’t even need to engage in such liberal blasphemy as advertising. Sure the proceeds could be used to start a foundation to raise money for feeding Africa’s poorest countries or installing a water cleansing or desalinization plant in a place like Haiti… Maybe even some plumbing to go with it.

But no, they evidently aren’t capable of allowing sponsors to sponsor pages/topics, so they won’t help solve world hunger, or provide Haitians with clean water. No, those people will have to continue to suffer an impoverished life the likes of which anyone who has ever heard of Wikipedia can so much as envision (no plumbing, electricity or clean water on an island near the equator).

Communism Killed Wikipedia
Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil.

So here’s my proposal:

Sign over Wikipedia to me, Peter Egan, effective immediately. In so doing, I will be assuming full control of both the organization’s assets and liabilities. Wikipedia will incur no additional financial losses from the moment the paper is signed.

And yet, I haven’t a doubt in my mind that I can not only turn around Wikipedia’s financial fortunes, but do so in a hurry too. If in four months, I don’t have the company solvent at the very minimum, I will incur my losses and spend as long as necessary paying them back. I’ll even agree to keep it non-profit provided I receive a salary consistent with that of an executive or an organization that size complete with healthcare, benefits, retirement, etc.

The below image is more recent than that above. They’re actually soliciting every visitor to the site with a pop-up that covers the entire screen, forcing you to close it or make a donation to view your content. Click the image to view the full-size version.

Wikipedia Begging / Panhandling
Wikipedia Doing Its Best “Homeless Vet” Impression… (Click image to view full-size.)

I don’t foresee that scenario occurring though (me going bankrupt after assuming control of Wikipedia’s assets and liabilities). You see, I am aware of a few concepts called supply-and-demand, and I have no doubt whatsoever that advertisers would be getting in line the moment the announcement was made that Wikipedia would began selling a small advertising spots in a manner that did not in any way corrupt the integrity of the information (which was always overblown anyway).

So Wikipedia, you can either fold like quitters and losers and allow one of the greatest developments in the history of the internet die needlessly because you were too stubborn to put your liberal egos aside long enoughCommunism is bad, mmkay to come to your senses and make a rational decision.

Reneging on the vow to never accept money from advertisers is far less of a breach of principle than is throwing away one of the treasurers of the internet — and all because you wanted to prove how much you hate capitalism. In other words, you’re threatening to close Wikipedia if people don’t give money in exchange for nothing, closing one of the most oft-used sites in the web’s history all because you want to show the world how devoted you are to your political views.

What will happen if Wikipedia does become insolvent financially, they’ll (I speculate) charge viewers and move to a paid membership model whereby those who pay for memberships can have access to varying amounts of content, depending on how much is paid. That would have far more influence on the site’s contents than would advertising all run through a third-party broker.

My final question is this: Since your “free,” communist utopia of Wikipedia is failing financially and on the brink of collapse, are any of the site’s founders or major contributors intelligent enough to recognize that this is merely one major example proving the point that communism is a failed economic system everywhere it is and had every been tried? Can they see that it always will fail until the end of time so long as people continue to delude themselves into thinking that it only needs one more chance to work, and that the hundreds of failures from over the past hundreds of years are all aberrations?

Granted, it hasn’t gone full communist yet (paywall model) whereby you MUST pay or you can’t have access, almost certainly with exceptions made for certain groups and individuals who are leftist nobility and/or members of high-priority interest groups. They of course would benefit from those who pay for access by being granted free access. These exceptions, while not explicitly stating as much would only be available to the left’s preferred classes and groupings of people.

Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?
Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?

This my readers and friends, is why communists being allowed to vote in a free society is a recipe for civil war and economic collapse. I’m as much for freedom of expression as the next guy, but not when said expression takes the form of mass murder, misinformation and financial calamity; which is what has happened every time communism has been tried anywhere, ever.

If Wikipedia does in fact implement a model whereby certain people have to pay while others will still be able to use the site free (socialism), I fear one of the web’s greatest creations and one of the most valuable properties on the web will be left to deteriorate in ruins, much like the abandoned housing complexes (the ones that look like college dormitories) in the old Soviet Union.

If that happens, it will be a shame and a pity. I’d be willing to risk my own financial wellbeing to prove that advertising does not have to influence content.

That said, if I have to pay for access to Wikipedia, or if I make a voluntary donation, I’d like my own page, and I’d like it to be the first one returned when one searches the name “Peter Egan.”

Communist Devil
Communist Devil