A correspondent sent
me the links to two commentaries on the fate of “Homeland,” a
TV series, described by Wikipedia as “an American spy thriller television series developed by Howard
and Alex Gansa based on the Israeli series Prisoners of War….”
I have not watched the
series, because, for one thing, I don’t subscribe to Showtime. I very
much stopped watching “broadcast” TV. Years ago, after broadcasting changed
from analog to digital, I could not find a reliable, problem-free device that
converted the media to my computer or TV, so I gave up “regular” TV, and
haven’t missed it. Combine those reasons with the fact that most TV today is a
hoochie-coochie belly-dancer of the MSM, charged with the task of keeping the
public pacified, distracted, and dumbed-down. With very few exceptions, I could
see where it was going and how Politically Correctness was dulling its future.
It was no loss to me.
Because Showtime has an international subscriber-viewer
list, this column does not address American readers solely.
Two insightful articles appeared
about “Homeland,” one by Patricia
on American Thinker, “Uh-oh, Homeland:
Hillary Lost! Now what?
“ from April 11th, and by M.G. Oprea on the
Federalist site on April 7th,  ’Homeland’
Actor: The Real ‘Guilty Ones’ this Season are White Men, Not Islamic
Both writers detail how a
hit show has succumbed to political correctness in its story to become drearily
boring and predictable. Political correctness, subtly or blatantly, has been
damning up its own mosquito-infested, “drainable” Swamp for decades, since
before WWII.
begins with an ominous warning:
writers of Homeland, Season 6, obviously were so confident that Hillary
Clinton was going to be the next president that their new narrative had a
female Democratic Party candidate win the election.  Elizabeth Marvel is a
wonderful actress and a pretty fair doppelganger for Hillary Clinton.  But
the writers got it all wrong.
the writers “get it wrong”? Or were they given their marching orders from on
high, after the 2016 election, to rewrite the denouement in Season 6? Just as you
can’t abruptly change a car’s speed from first to third while going at sixty
mph, but not expect the gears to grind and strip and create nasty results.
an interview, show creator Alex Gansa revealed that their scripts were by design
following real events, but “five or six episodes had been completed
when the election happened.”  Hillary lost, and they were stuck with
the wrong real-life president-elect….
the people who have been running the CIA for years, the good guys who were
trying to protect the country, set out to murder the president-elect!  Did
they construct the new direction after Donald Trump won?  The latter must
be true, because the first female president-elect, a Democrat, is by the finale
somehow a female Donald Trump, to be dealt with exactly in the manner the real
left have been behaving since their loss to Trump in November.  Total
writers have inadvertently demonstrated exactly how the left functions, not the
right.  Now that we know that the Obama administration functioned like a
crime syndicate, it is easy to surmise how easily the writers projected these
tactics onto their own characters.  They even created a character
(presumably based on radio conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) who operates a
massive bot organization to propagandize by social media. 
“Inadvertently”? “Unconsciously”? Or
“accidentally on purpose”? If an Antifa thug tosses a rock at a Berkeley
auditorium window to protest the appearance of a scheduled speaker he has been
told not to approve of, is that an inadvertent, unconscious, or incidental
action? To toe the politically correct line is to dilute one’s volition, to rob
it of any power or consequence, to reduce oneself to the level of a kneejerk
village idiot who believes anything anyone tells him. The only realm of
volition an

Antifa thug can exercise is initiating physical force. Yes, that is
how the left functions.

Mandy Patinkin, who has played Saul
Berenson from the beginning,  Carrie’s father-figure and mentor, was
interviewed on NPR and, as M.G. Oprea explains, admits to and totally
supports the guilt-driven narrative shift.  Who knew he was such an
abject moonbat?  Probably lots of people.  And he plays one of the
good guys!  But as Oprea writes, “[a]ctors tend to think they are the only ones
with the knowledge and power to speak the truth about the injustices in our
country and the world at large, that they are our last great hope.” 
She goes on: “But they aren’t.  They are entertainers and, much more
rarely, artists.”
Later in column:
season six finale will air on Sunday night. If you’re like me, at this point
you couldn’t care less. That’s because the show has taken such a sudden turn
toward political preaching and progressive tut-tutting that its story and
characters barely resemble those of the previous five seasons. If you’ve been
wondering what on earth happened, wonder no more.
Thursday, the actor who plays Saul Berenson, Mandy Patinkin, explained
everything on NPR. In an interview
with “Here & Now’s” Jeremy Hobson, Patinkin discusses past accusations that
the show is Islamophobic. He says that although the “Homeland” crew never meant
to be Islamophobic, and certainly didn’t expect that kind of criticism, it is
nevertheless true. According to him, the show became “part of the problem of
the Islamophobia.”
To correct the “problem of
Islamophobia,” it was decided to “back-pedal” to insanity, to lose one’s
balance, and fall gracelessly into a ditch. Who voiced the “accusations”? Muslims?
John Espiosito, Professor
of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown
University? He’s had plenty
to say
about “islamophobia.”
John Esposito, the Saudi-funded
director of Georgetown University’s Bridge
, is on a mission to convince the world that “Islamophobia
has metastasized” as a “social cancer in America” one academic
conference at a time. Speaking alongside his protégé, Dalia
, Bridge Initiative Senior Fellow Engy Abdelkader,
and others at the September 22 “Islamophobia
in Focus: Muslims and the Media
” conference in Washington, DC, the
notorious Islamism
pitched this message to an audience of about 130.
What mere TV writer for a spy-thriller can
ignore the condemnation of such a high level academic?

The U.S. State Department throws
the hero to the Islamic wolves.
offers some further insights.
Political propaganda makes for terrible
entertainment. High-quality television of the sort we’ve come to expect from
Showtime is supposed to present its viewers with a compelling narrative, not
scold them over their supposed beliefs and concerns. That is not why most
people watch television. They watch it to be entertained.
Actors want to believe they are somehow the
heroes of our culture. Patinkin said in his NPR interview that the “system of
false information and truth that has seemed to take over the focus of the show
is so horrifyingly important to bear witness to.” Actors tend to think they are
the only ones with the knowledge and power to speak the truth about the injustices
in our country and the world at large, that they are our last great hope.
But they
aren’t. They are entertainers and, much more rarely, artists. An entertainer’s
job is to entertain, not to preach. An artist’s job is to tell us something
compelling about what it means to be human, not spew political propaganda.
[Italics mine]

“Concerned Citizens” attempt to
delegitimize the hero
An entertainer can be a fellow who mimes or
who juggles four or five balls for the “entertainment” of people standing in a
long line to see a hit movie. Or it can be Laurence Olivier delivering
his Richard the Third speech.
I’ve always had a problem with the term entertainment. One can be “entertained”
at a circus or by a mime pretending to be in an imaginary space, and that will
be the end of it. But to listen to and watch Olivier “decamp on his deformities”
and plot murder is more than entertainment; it is “educational.” It’s a moment
that imprints itself in one’s mind as a glimpse into the soul of an envious,
vicious power-luster. Olivier was an artist. There used to be many talented
actors who were also artists. But where in the realm of “entertainment” can one
segregate it from memorable

The hero investigates academic fraud


They are entertainers and, much more rarely,
artists. An entertainer’s job is to entertain, not to preach. An artist’s job
is to tell us something compelling about what it means to be human, not spew
political propaganda.
So, there it is. “Homeland’s” monumental
shift in narrative and tone this season wasn’t an accident. It was a 100
percent intentional effort to atone for the show’s previous sins. But the
self-flagellation is so heavy handed, and such a departure from previous
seasons, that it’s jarring for the viewer. It’s also boring.
”Political propaganda makes for terrible
entertainment,” noted Oprea.
Not necessarily. Some of the most dramatic
films I’ve seen have been “political propaganda.” Orwell once wrote a highly
readable collection of essays: “All
Art is Propaganda
.” I disagree with that estimate, because much art isn’t
an attempt to advance a political view, but rather to communicate an esthetic
or dramatic value.
Many of my novels only seem to reflect a
political viewpoint. An early one, We
Three Kings
, pits an American entrepreneur in America against a Saudi
prince. The hero has been abandoned by the State Department to allow the
vengeful prince to deal with the hero as he wishes. The hero has no recourse
but to retaliate against the violence visited on him and his friends.

The hero has a violent encounter
with the Muslim Brotherhood
My Cyrus Skeen detective series, set in the
1920s and 1930s, often sees Skeen launched into an unavoidable political
contest, as in Civic
, A
Crimson Overture
, and Wintery
. Speaking of Islamophobia, Skeen encounters the early agents
of the Muslim
in The
Black Stone
. Because Skeen is a thinking, well-read detective, he is also
drawn into solving murders
and mysteries set in academia, such as in Trichotomy.

Skeen “inadvertently” (or coincidentally)
projects in the narrative particular political developments that will come to pass
in the future. Many of the forces that engage him in conflict are invariably
political ones. My latest novel, Celebrity
, could be taken as an allegory on the current campaign to discredit
delegitimize Donald Trump.
Of course, none of my titles has ever been
produced for TV or the big screen, and I doubt that, given the state of Hollywood,
any will ever will be. Hollywood has taken a journey to the dark side of “entertainment,”
that is, it has embarked on an Islamophilac hijrah
to ensure that Islam and Muslims are never again blasphemed or offended.