''We live in the Age of the Dawn of Understanding. And one of the most potent factors in bringing about understanding among the various scattered nations of the earth is the motion picture... Misunderstanding breeds intolerance, and this is the most fruitful cause of war, and of minor dissensions, too...
When nations comprehend the motives back of another nation's procedure, they cease to be intolerant... [The motion picture] is bringing about that understanding and tolerance that will eventually mean world-wide peace. For, in my opinion, wars will cease when the nations of the world really understand each other.'' - actress Norma Talmadge, in The Mission of Motion Pictures, 1931
It appears that actors and actresses have been pontificating about matters beyond their comprehension and understanding for a long time now; it is not a new thing when some 'entertainer' or 'personality' or celebrity holds forth on how to attain world peace and racial harmony.
Norma Talmadge, for those who are not old movie fans, was first famous as a silent movie actress, whose career foundered somewhat with the advent of talkies. She was a beautiful lady, and she may have been a good actress; I've never seen her films. But she was not a sage or a philosopher. Norma Talmadge's cliche that 'misunderstanding breeds intolerance' is still being said by the left today, decades later, although it's often used in a very vitriolic way by the 'tolerant' left. I am sure we've all been in Internet discussions where some lefty angrily says that ''you [meaning 'you hateful right-wing extremists'] fear anything different, and hate what you fear.'' They generally say, with considerable spite, that 'if you left your lily-white enclave and actually experienced diversity, you wouldn't be so hateful.' They always presume ignorance and fear, which of course in their understanding of things, leads inexorably to 'hate.'
When people on Internet forums implied that I must live in a lily-white enclave (or a lily-white anything) I had to laugh; at the time when I was accused of that, I in fact lived in a very diverse neighborhood in a big, big city, and was likely to see more 'diversity' than White people when I stepped outside my door. And I lived there by choice at the time. However I did not bargain for the changes that mass immigration brought in a very short time in that city.
It's often said, conversely, by conservatives, that liberals isolate themselves from 'diversity' and seek out gated communities in homogeneous and upscale areas, and have never had any real direct experience of say, the inner city. To be fair, this is not always true. I knew many, many liberals in the big city who lived in 'diverse' neighborhoods, whether upscale, trendy (but mixed) neighborhoods or down-at-heel but gentrifying neighborhoods. Sure, there are the 'limousine liberal' types, of which most Hollywood celebrities are typical, who live in some kind of splendid isolation from the diversity they promote so furiously. But there are many liberals who work at low-paying jobs who cannot afford the gated communities, and it is in fact their condition in life that embitters them in their liberalism/leftism. They are angry with 'the system' because it has not recognized their superiority and smoothed the way for them. Many of these people have degrees in some liberal arts area, degrees which have not proven very marketable, and thus they live marginal existences, often in 'sketchy' inner-city neighborhoods where they do indeed have considerable contact with 'diversity', but the diversity they encounter often consists of exotic immigrants or college-educated minorities whose tastes and proclivities match their own SWPL tastes.
Many middle-class or lower-middle-class liberals work in academia or government-related jobs, such as social work, or health-care related jobs, where they have many 'diverse' affirmative-action co-workers, or where they work directly with poorer minority families. The ones who work in academia or the school system thus tend to deal mostly with minorities who live a middle-class lifestyle and who are not typical in that sense. Those White liberals who work in the justice system or in social work see a lot of the social pathologies, of course, but that does not dampen their enthusiasm for diversity, because they blame what they see on the system' and ultimately on Whitey -- who is 'racist' because he misunderstands minorities and thus is intolerant.
So does contact with minorities always increase 'tolerance' and understanding? Obviously not; in many cases, it does the exact opposite, as the scales fall from the eyes of the naive. But does 'diversity' always convert the liberal to race-realism? Obviously not. It's more complex than that; people who are for whatever reason predisposed to be liberal in their attitudes will not be shaken by bad experiences in real life. We've all read news stories of liberals who were 'mugged by reality' as the saying goes, and who nevertheless clung fiercely to their kumbaya ethic.
Still, the liberal solution to the racial 'misunderstandings' is to increase contact among the races, in fact, to enforce contact between the races. And it must be done by any means necessary, to coin a phrase. If it means court orders, legal sanctions, so be it. That's their view of things.
But do they not start to wonder, when, faced with 50 or so years of coerced contact (desegregation at gunpoint, forced busing, affirmative action, the relocation of poor people to middle-class or affluent neighborhoods, and now mass immigration specifically from nonwhite countries) relations between the races seem to have deteriorated to an all-time low?
No, reality does not deter the true ideologue; if real life does not follow the utopian plan, then it just means they must work twice as hard at forcing compliance, and keep finding new ways, new avenues, to program people or to club them into submission.
The media are doing their utmost to further the plan to bring 'understanding and tolerance', as Miss Talmadge said in her remarks 78 years ago. Now even our commercials carry the insistent message: 'understand and tolerate, or else.'
Does anybody remember the old-fashioned commercials, with a silly advertising jingle telling us to buy Cleanse-O Soap or whatever, because it cleans the best? These days, every commercial has to be one of those obnoxious vignettes set in somebody's kitchen or living room, or at the office. Every group of people has to resemble the United Nations, or the Starship Enterprise, with one of each race represented. Every commercial has to have some 'message' and the message is always that diversity is good, and Whiteness (which lacks diversity) is bad. Yet, paradoxically, the pro-diversity message is presented along with the image of racially-mixed couples and mixed-race individuals. The underlying message, which is becoming more insistent and heavy-handed lately, is that racial mixing and blending is good. The next step will be to show White couples as bigoted and hateful and divisive.
Think it won't happen? Look at how the media have increased the pro-gay propaganda, and how successfully they have implanted the idea (which would have been shocking a couple of decades ago) that opposition to gay 'marriage' is hate. So it will go with interracial pairings.
The fact that if interracial mating becomes as widespread as our rulers would apparently wish it to be, diversity would no longer exist as it does now, does not seem to have occurred to them.
However, I think that the idea of 'diversity' as a good in itself was merely an idea that they came up with to decrease resistance to further forcible integration of not only black and White, but all the many nationalities and ethnicities of the world. I think the plan for a long time has been to work towards a one-world system, and that presupposes decreasing the natural tendency of people to prefer their own, and to create homogeneous societies based on blood relationship. The liberal answer: simply add every race in the world to Western countries, then shake, blend, and stir until no more 'divisive' Whiteness exists.
''The state must socialize every group....Men must learn to have world patriotism. World patriotism must be a faith....There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual....The only alternative is World Federation...with a world parliament, an international court, and an international police force....Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation. They must see and affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a religion before it can be a reality and a system." Samuel Zane Batten, The New World Order, 1919
Another example from the past:
''I think the subject which will be of utmost importance politically is mass psychology. ... Various results will soon be arrived at [including] that the influence of home is obstructive ... in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can reach the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. ... Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. ... Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism.'' - Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953
The educational propaganda that Russell refers to need not include only formal education; it includes all the media, the 'news' media which is now so transparently biased, and the so-called 'entertainment' industry, which seems more propaganda-ridden in an insidious way than the 'news' media. At least some of the thinking people in our society are on their guard against the lies and half-truths of the 'news' peddlers, but a great many people see movies and TV and popular music as simply meant to create enjoyment or escapism. A synonym for entertainment is 'diversion' and that word fits; the entertainment of today is meant to divert us from truth, and to divert us, to distract our attention, from the really important things and fix it on the vulgar, the banal, the sensationalistic, the grotesque, the shocking, the titillating.
So way back in 1931 the fading silent movie star was describing something that was underway even then: the effort of the movie industry to shape public thought, taste, and opinion; the effort to make us into docile 'world citizens' willing to tolerate anything and everything in the name of peace and harmony and inclusion and acceptance.
The desire was to make us into passive consumers and followers, and to erase our natural affinities in favor of artificial ones like 'world nationalism'.
But it's all in the service of 'world peace' so anything is permissible, from the point of view of the believer.