Woody Allen, O.J. Simpson, Men's Rights and America's moronic soap-opera culture

Q: What does the "Woody Allen case" have in common with the "O.J. Simpson case"? A: Millions of proud-of-ignorance-and-loudness idiots who have zero first-hand knowledge of either situation have obnoxiously loud and combatively assertive "opinions" about that which they know absolutely nothing about. This amazingly common critter is in no small part responsible for America's UNsustainably idiotic popularity-based soap-opera culture, complete with its licensed therapist enablers who, for the most part, operate in their own financial best interests.

When engaged in the tit-for-tat polemical opposition to the highly manipulative "if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-a-misogynist" so-called "leftist" propaganda of various professional, play-the-gender-card second-wave gender feminists, it is not only extremely useful, but even necessary, to demonstrate that it is entirely possible for people of all shapes, sizes, genders and colors to share similar ideas (or disagree with same) on various subjects without being called "misogynist".

An example of what I'm talking about, especially as it relates to the Woody Allen situation, is an extremely manipulative and intellectually dishonest article published in PsychCentral by Elisabeth Corey titled, "An Open Letter to Those Defending Woody Allen." Let's take a look at it.

But before we do, judge for yourself whether or not Ronan Farrow looks a LOT more like the son of Frank Sinatra (who was married to Mia Farrow) or Woody Allen. Vanity Fair magazine wrote the following: "Farrow discusses her relationship with Frank Sinatra, telling [Maureen] Orth that Sinatra was the great love of her life, and says, 'We never really split up.' When asked point-blank if her biological son with Woody Allen, Ronan Farrow, may actually be the son of Frank Sinatra, Farrow answers, 'Possibly.'" Of course, if Ronan is Sinatra's son, wouldn't that explain why Ronan would take the side of his biological mother against a biologically unrelated person? And wouldn't it explain why so many people like me are turned off by Mia Farrow's coyness on the subject?

Being somewhat of a men's rights actvist, the first thing I noticed about Elisabeth Corey is that, according to the information at the end of the article, she "is a survivor of family-controlled child sex trafficking and ritual sex abuse. Her education in social work and her personal experiences as a survivor inform her intimate discussion about the biological, psychological, social and spiritual aspects of trauma recovery, which she discusses on her blog at www.stolenchildhood.wordpress.com. She writes about breaking the cycle of abuse through conscious parenting, navigating intimate relationships as a survivor, balancing the memory recovery process with daily life, coping with self-doubt, and overcoming the physical symptoms of a traumatic childhood." Seems to me, Ms. Corey may be too much in search of her own healing to render an objective opinion about the Woody Allen situation.

Let's expose and deconstruct Ms. Corey's tranparently misandristic spin line by line. For the sake of easy reading, I will accurately paraphrase Ms. Corey by using [brackets] where helpful, especially to avoid clumsiness with pronouns.

First, Ms. Corey says: "I was shocked by [Dylan Farrow's] bravery, honesty and resiliency. Although Ms. Corey is in possession of zero first hand facts, she chooses to presume Dylan Farrow is telling the truth while simultaneously presuming Woody Allen is a lying scumbag1. On its face, that is a misandristic presumption which intellectually honest people of all shapes, sizes, genders and colors in possession of no first-hand facts of the case would be unwilling to make.

Then Ms. Corey says: "However, I was more shocked by those who are willing to defend ... a man who has been accused of child sexual abuse by one adopted daughter and married the other one." Ms. Corey's own editor said, "[Ed. - Allen was never Soon-Yi Previn's father, adopted or otherwise, according to both Allen and Previn.]" Obviously, either Ms. Corey simply didn't care that Allen had never adopted Ms. Previn, or she wanted to spin it to suit her own misandristic agenda anyway.

Then Ms. Corey says: "The myriad reasons for this defense [of Woody Allen] show a complete lack of understanding for the complex trauma of a child sex abuse victim." Obviously that statement is a complete crock of crap indicating a total lack of fair play and understanding of the most fundamental of constitutional rights. I am not "defending" Allen, per se, because I am privy to no more first-hand facts about the seriously dysfunctional Allen-Farrow "family" than Ms. Corey is. What many intellectually honest thinking people are defending is the notion of procedural due process. The logical inference of Ms. Corey's statement that if you are in favor of due process, you are simultaneously showing "a complete lack of understanding for the complex trauma of a child sex abuse victim" is so absurd on its face that destroys any credibility Ms. Corey is hoping for.

Ms. Corey says, "In many cases, speaking the truth may be necessary to heal from the abuse." Problem is, it is only after a fair hearing which has observed the fundamental constitutional rules of facing one's accuser/s, of procedural due process, of the rules of evidence and a presumption of innocence that society has any realistic possibility of actually knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying. The rest is political manipulation and spin — for the sake of the "victim" of course. Problem is, everybody but white males between the ages of 18 and 65 are "victims", while males, particularly white males, are automatically the "Great Satan." Personally, that type of manipulative sophistry is anathema to me.

Corey continues: "In some cases, speaking the truth may bring about the justice that was evasive for so long." Once again, a crock of bologna on its face. More than twenty years have passed. The statute of limitations has run out on the allegations against Allen. He can't be prosecuted, and if he's lying, he'd not about to admit it. So the unpleasant reality of the situation is that the only logical effect of Dylan Farrow's accusation is to harm Allen at Oscar time. No one would know that better than Mia Farrow.

Corey continues: "I thought about all the nasty comments from people like you ... If you have lived a normal life without abuse, money might drive your decisions, but for me, avoiding death is pretty high on my list of priorities." Despite being a male, I, too had problems with my father. I spent most of my late teens and 20s being depressed and suicidal. So cry me a river, sweetheart, you and I are FAR from the only people in our respective boats. As you get older, your parents die, you suck it up and get on with life. The notion that "nobody knows the troubles I feel" is something to be faced down and grown past. Feelings of "victimhood" do no good for any one. The larger issue is that we can't let our individual problems make us want to destroy the Bill of Rights and due process "for the children" or "for the victims". The universe simply doesn't work that way.

Corey concludes with a real manipulative tear jerker: "If you don’t believe [Dylan Farrow], what does that mean for the abused child who might choose to come to you for help? Will you stay in your comfortable world where bad things don’t happen to children unless they ask for it, want attention or hang out in dangerous locations? If a child comes to you about their abuse, will you allow that child to continue experiencing trauma without support? Will you make a difference by changing your understanding, no matter how uncomfortable? Or will you perpetuate the pervasive scourge of child sexual abuse for yet another generation?"

So if you are sufficiently educated and ethical to believe that giving full force and effect to the Bill of Rights and due process of law is the best way for society to determine the truth of a given situation, ipse dixit, you are in favor of child abuse. If you are intellectually honest enough to admit you don't know very much about dysfunctional families, personalities, or the specific facts regarding the self-evidently dysfunctional Woody Allen-Mia Farrow "family", ipse dixit, you favor "[perpetuating] the scourge of child abuse for another generation."

Such ignorance-based misandristic manipulativeness is unacceptable. Actor Alec Baldwin — full disclosure: I admire his acting skill (see, e.g., Red October, Aviator) but despise his leftist politics and transparent arrogance — was exactly on the money when he tweeted to an idiot fan: "What the f&@% is wrong w u that u think we all need to b commenting on this family's personal struggle?"

I will let Alec Baldwin's tweet speak for my objection to, and contempt for, Ms. Corey's open letter.

It is a common practice of disordered and manipulative people to try to recruit as many people as possible to their cause, thereby undermining their perceived enemy's support group/system.

Dylan Farrow said, "I will not see my family dragged down like this ... I can't stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses." Very interesting, in view of the fact Dylan is the one who went public and "dragged her family" into the mess/spectacle. Dylan also said, "My brother is dead to me." That's exactly the sort of thing a seriously disordered person might be expected to say.

Dylan said, "My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies." In contrast, her brother Moses, a licensed family therapist in the state of Connecticut since 2007 — which would logically seem to indicated a professional family therapist's knowledge of dysfunctional families — said, "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister ... And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi." "Of course Woody did not molest my sister [Dylan Farrow] ... She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don’t know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."

People magazine wrote: "Mia admits she has forgiven Allen because the burden of her anger is 'too heavy' for her to carry. However, she has also given up any dream of reconciling with her eldest daughter. 'You just can’t go on mourning forever, and so I’ve moved on. It’s been a long time now. And I really don’t think of her as my daughter any more. I can’t. She isn’t. She’s estranged – and strange.'" So Dylan Farrow says Moses is "dead to [her]", Mia Farrow says, Soon-Yi "isn't [her daughter]. Without making any judgments regarding substantive facts, that language is suspiciously similar to the language disordered people would use when trying to recruit the whole world to take sides in their family's self-evident dysfunction. Personally, I find the notion that Mia Farrow has forgiven Woody Allen to be highly suspicious at the very least. One has to remember that Mia is a professional actress who is professionally skilled at delivering lines of script persuasively. Actors can laugh real laughter and/or cry real tears on command. They are more than sufficiently intelligent and skilled to play the media and gullible people like a violin.

Although I have no formal education in family dysfunction, I have the real world education of belonging to a family which has been destroyed by dysfunction and false accusations which, as oldest sibling, I know for a first hand fact to be false. I was there. And, those false allegations of abuse were made in the middle of a hideously acrimonious divorce/custody battle. In my family, two middle-aged siblings are estranged from the other three middle-aged siblings. Our deceased evangelical-missionary parents raised us to be better than this. You can read the story in my blog, "David E. Wilkenson vs. Colorado: A Saga of Criminal Judicial Behavior In Family Courts." The false accusations were made against my younger brother, David. I am sixty-nine years old and have never had children. So I write not as a falsely accused father, but as a men's rights activist who is morally outraged by, and fed up with, judicial criminality in family courts.

I would highly recommend that intellectually honest people read the blog post of David M. Allen M.D. titled "Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Dylan Farrow, and Soon-Yi Previn: Old Controversies about False Abuse Accusations Rekindled." Although he has the benefit of a formal education and he puts his piece in far more diplomatic language than I have, Dr. Allen says much the same thing I have said here. He has the disadvantage of a medical practice to protect. As a morally outraged men's rights activist, I don't have to sugar coat my words.

Here it is in a nutshell, boys and girls: The world is full of perverts, jerks, disordered personalities and liars. Some are female jerks, and some are male jerks. While it may be true that a higher percentage of men beat their children to death than women, it is also true that a higher percentage of women divorce their husbands just to get child support money. There is more than enough anger and grief to go around. There is more than enough suffering for which to seek healing. All have sinned and come short of the glory. Yadayadayada. At the end of the day — so what?

If society is going to use the very limited tool known as "positive man-made law" to try to solve some of these problems, the ONE and ONLY method society has to determine the truth of who is lying and who is telling the truth is to give full force and effect to every accused person's fundamental rights to 1) be presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) face his or her accuser, 3) follow procedural due process of law, and 4) follow the established rules of evidence. All else is ignorance, vanity, manipulation and agenda-drive spin.

Despite the ignorance-and-false-pride-based "opinions" of legions of clueless busybodies, justice is not some weird kind of popularity contest. Those who, without any first-hand knowledge of the relevant facts, want to express opinions regarding the goings on of dysfunctional families are simply foolish, self-important and arrogant, nothing more, nothing less. To such people, I would say, "Get over yourself!"

Let's move on to the O.J. Simpson soap opera. In the Woody Allen saga, I believe Allen is innocent because I see no reasonable cause to presume otherwise. On the other hand, I can see what appears to me as the wannabe-clever words of obviously very intelligent manipulative people. Also, Ronan is a spitting image of Frank Sinatra, and may be reasonably presumed to be the progeny of "Old Blue Eyes."

In Simpson's case, I believe O.J. was most likely guilty, but I also believe the police falsified evidence to enhance the possibilities of obtaining a conviction against an extremely popular public figure.

My reasoning is as follows: O.J. is intelligent enough to represent various corporations for big time endorsement money. He is also intelligent enough to memorize lines and act in successful movies. As a professional NFL running back, he is also used to making quick "on the fly" decisions. Therefore, I respectfully suggest he is too intelligent to have left one matching bloody glove at the scene of the crime while conveniently dropping its mate behind his house for the police to discover. But that's not the real issue for me. The real issue are the drops of blood on the sidewalk and on O.J.'s socks which contained test-tube-cleaning chemicals. To me that is dispositive evidence that police falsified evidence trying to maximize the chances of obtaining a conviction.

I freely admit that I know absolutely nothing about the case other than what was in the media. (And we all know the media is truthful and devoid of spin 100% of the time. Right?) But what those two important tidbits of information logically lead to is a problem. The question logically arises as to which scenario presents a great danger to society: 1) a famous "star" narcissist murders his purportedly round-heeled jet-set trophy wife in a jealous rage, or 2) police are encouraged to plant false evidence to obtain "hamburger helper" convictions with absolutely no adverse consequences to themselves?

In my opinion, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on those issues. I certainly can't blame a jury for deciding that they were going to refuse to return a conviction under those circumstances.

Personally, I think Deuteronomy 19:16-19 has the ideal solution: do to the false witnesses (or false evidence planters) what they had intended to do to the person against whom they gave false testimony or planted false evidence. To me, that would seem to mean that if you want to ignore the Bill of Rights in O.J. Simpson's case just to hang a guilty murderer, then you should hang Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange right along with O.J. on the same gibbet at the same time. Sadly, in America's "freebie" addicted Constitution-hating culture, most people would probably rather see a full-blown police state where robo-cops can kill you just because they feel like it than let one anomalous murderer go free. I disagree with that view, regardless of the fact various sophistic propaganda scum1, may say that means I support murder. To that type of person, I would cheerfully offer the infamous "middle finger salute." Free speech is a hill I am willing to die on.

Also, if every woman who falsely charged a man with rape or sexual molestation were to receive the Deuteronomy 19-16-19 treatment, then lawyers would make a lot less. And we can't have that, now, can we?

Lastly, as emphatically as possible, I reiterate for any wannabe-cutesy propaganda spinners who might read this: I don't know any more first hand facts than you do about either the Woody Allen case or the O.J. Simpson case. I just hate political correctness because I believe it has destroyed the American culture and dream. Therefore I believe political correctness and its practitioners need to be stigmatized, just as those who believe that false rape charges against men do not matter need to be stigmatized.

As an "aside", there is a thing called "white guilt" which functions as a monstrously effective road block to clear thinking and intellectually honest discussion on the part of Caucasian-type people. Professor Walter E. Williams has magnanimously given that type of foggy-thinking, "Sad Sack" individual a wonderful healing gift. I would love to see an intellectually honest male-appreciating libertarian woman write a similar proclamation absolving males of their "male guilt" which so effectively hampers the thinking and polemic capabilities of so many wussy tassled-loafer-wearing men's rights activists who are so crippled by their fear of being falsely made to look as if they might be misogynistic that they have difficulty speaking the unvarnished truth — even as a matter of candid personal philosophy.


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Woody Allen Speaks Out - NYTimes
"I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that." ~ Woody Allen

Woody Allen says son Ronan Farrow ‘looks a lot like’ Frank Sinatra - New York Daily News

An Open Letter to Those Defending Woody Allen, by Elisabeth Corey

Seitz: The Power of Mia and Ronan Farrow’s Virtual Booing of Woody Allen, by Matt Zoller Seitz

Dylan Farrow Criticizes Hollywood for Embracing Woody Allen Despite Sexual Abuse Claims, by Caroline Bankoff

Mia and Ronan Farrow Shade Woody Allen for Award, by Halle Kiefer

Woody Allen defends himself on 60 Minutes in '92 - YouTube Video

Woody Allen Slammed In Father's Day Tweet - YouTube Video

Woody Allen's Ex-Girlfriend Assesses Allegations - YouTube Video

Woody Allen's camp speaks out against allegations - YouTube Video


Woody Allen - "News about Woody Allen, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times"


Complete Prose of Woody Allen (1992), by Woody Allen

Woody Allen: A Biography, by Eric Lax


1. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.

Under construction . . .