Post-modern movie critics are celebrating Rian Johnson’s movie Knives Out. They applaud it with the same enthusiasm they did for his previous cinematic failure, The Last Jedi, that “subverted,” that is, spat on, the beloved characters in George Lucas’ Star Wars universe.
They applaud it for the same reason: Johnson’s in-your-face Left-wing dogma.
Writes one adoring reviewer at the Verge [Knives Out review: a great mystery that fumbles its big finish] about the villains in Rian “subvert Star Wars” Johnson’s latest movie:
“The Thrombeys ….believed themselves to be good people because they were nice to her despite all their casual racism and espousement of conservative talking points on immigration ….We want to see [the heroine] prevail over the scheming wealthy white people who callously brush off concerns about the grotesque inhumanity on the US southern border in drawing rooms, who feign principle in opposition to their most egregiously offensive family members but ultimately only maintain their noble beliefs from the comfort of wealth.”
Excuse me, but “conservative talking points on immigration” and “casual racism”?
See Larry Elder’s Democrats Against Illegal Immigration for a taste of reality.
Sadly for the reviewer, the movie ultimately fails in its central conflict:
“As Knives Out twists its way toward a conclusion, it doubles down on condescension, elevating Marta over the political landscape that would rather demonize her. Trouble is, people like Marta are already demonized by bigger and crueler buffoons than the Thrombeys — and there’s no fortune waiting to save them.”
For that, I suppose we require the forced wealth distribution of “Democratic Socialism.”
“And so, even though Knives Out ultimately brings its mystery to a satisfying conclusion with a culprit named and cuffed, there’s another one that gets away clean: white guilt.”
For this, we will have to wait for Rian Johnson’s next “subversive” political screed posing as entertainment.
Recommended Reading: The Big Lie in Hollywood: The Hollywood Ten Were Not Victims But Villains
From CBS News 60 Minutes on 300+ Trump ads taken down by Google, YouTube:
In an interview on 60 Minutes, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the controversial Trump/Biden ad does not violate their policy. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Wojcicki, “Have you taken down any of President Trump’s ads at all?” YouTube’s CEO responded, “There are ads of President Trump that were not approved to run on Google or YouTube.” When pressed for an example, Wojcicki added, “Well, they’re available in our transparency report.”
In response to concerns raised after the 2016 election cycle, Google and YouTube, like Facebook, keep a searchable archive of political ads that have run on the site. 60 Minutes reviewed the archive to learn more about President Trump’s problematic political ads. We found that over 300 video ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy. But the archive doesn’t detail what policy was violated. Was it copyright violation? A lie or extreme inaccuracy? Faulty grammar? Bad punctuation? It’s unclear. The ads determined to be offending are not available to be screened. We found very little transparency in the transparency report.
Che Guevara on Executions without Trial
“We executed many people by firing squad without knowing if they were fully guilty. At times, the Revolution cannot stop to conduct much investigation.” — (1962) Quoted by the editor of the RevolucÍon, Carlos Franqui.
Che Guevara Against the Freedom of the Press
“We must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with free press.”
Che Guevara on the “Progressive” Echo Chamber
“My friends are friends only so long as they think as I do politically.”
Che Guevara on Cuban Concentration Camps (Guanahacabibes)
“We send to Guanahacabibes people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals [i.e., homosexuality, Christianity]…it is hard labor…the working conditions are harsh…”
Che Guevara on Gun Crime
“My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood…I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment I discovered that I really like killing.” — Letter to his father.
Che clearly would fit right in with any College Leftist.
Sources: Victims of Communism
General Charles de Gaulle on France’s national vice:
Envy is our national vice, it is the worst of the Deadly Sins, it is what projected the angels into Hell because they wanted to be the equal of God. It is worse than pride because pride has a certain nobility, while envy is the feeling of the defeated and rancorous, it is the crime of Cain against Abel, of him who has failed in everything and kills his neighbour because he is successful, it is the anger of losers. If the French did not have this fault, one could forgive them for many things.
In other words, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” — sans liberty.
Theodore Dalrymple has written an eloquent, insightful review on the memoir of David Cameron:
David Cameron’s supreme achievement is banality
For a man to have been at the peak of political power for six years and to have written a 700-page memoir without a single arresting thought or amusing anecdote, without giving any insight into the important people he has met, and without displaying any interest in, let alone knowledge of, history, philosophy or higher culture, is an achievement of a kind.
Public relations as the queen of the sciences
In a sense, Mr. Cameron is a Kantian: he believes that we can never get beyond appearance to things in themselves. Behind presentation there is no substance: just more presentation, so that public relations is the queen of the sciences and opinion polls must be consulted as Roman soothsayers consulted chicken entrails.
A “bread and circuses” populist against Brexit populism
Mr. Cameron castigates supporters of Brexit as populist, but he is himself a firm believer in the circus-division of a bread-and-circuses regime, for example counting Britain’s high tally of medals in the London Olympics as a great national success and cause for pride, rather than as evidence of a shameful and frivolous concentration on a trivial diversion during a period of national decline.
Conserving the principle of statism
Mr. Cameron poses not only as a man of the people, but also as a conservative, admitting in his memoir, however, that he means by this the pursuit of progressive ends (that is to say, the fashionable nostra of the day) by conservative means: once again, the form without the content. And insofar as he can be said to have any philosophy at all, it is profoundly marked by statism.
“Valuting ambition” + “utter mediocrity” = Cameron
In the end, I felt slightly sorry for David Cameron. There is no plumbing his shallows. As politicians go, he was obviously at the decent end of the spectrum, he was no monster; but when vaulting ambition (as his must surely have been) is allied to utter mediocrity, the result is… 700 pages that are a torture to read.
Cameron’s memoir may not be worth reading, but the entirety of Mr. Darymple’s “arresting and amusing” essay, David Cameron’s Big Lie, surely is.
Arthur Milikh exposes the lies and distortions behind the New York Time’s so-called “1619 Project” that seeks to reinterpret the history of America, over at City Journal.
To make America’s Founding contemptible, one must hide, ignore, and distort the Founders’ writings and thoughts. Irresponsibly omitted from this narrative is the fact that not a single major Founder endorsed slavery.
Ample evidence shows that the Founders wished for an end to slavery, contrary to the Times’s assertion that “neither Jefferson nor most of the founders intended to abolish slavery.” John Adams argued, “every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.” He hoped that the inequalities of the Old World would eventually disappear. In 1778, Jefferson introduced a bill in the Virginia legislature banning the importation of slavery, which he hoped would lead to the institution’s “final eradication.”
It is true that, in order to ratify the Constitution, the Founders decided to allow the abhorrent practice of slavery to continue for a limited time. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and possibly other states, would never have ratified the Constitution otherwise. This decision was made, however, on what the Founders considered prudential grounds—better to have union than endless wars among the states.
Another often-ignored fact is that America was home to approximately 60,000 free blacks around the time of the Founding; this number tripled in just 20 years. Black Americans voted in several states, which appears to make America the first nation in recorded history where both races voted side by side. Those free and freed persons represented the beginning of our long and strenuous path toward justice.
Black Americans have been treated in a grossly unjust fashion throughout our history. But the Declaration and the Constitution themselves, according to the Founders’ intentions, contain the principles through which justice would come, as Fredrick Douglass and, later, Martin Luther King, Jr. believed. These countervailing facts and statements, should produce a more balanced view of America’s Founding. Why, then, are they so thoroughly and carefully avoided by today’s narrative-creators, who intend to persuade through distortion?
Rather than indulge in recrimination, we should follow Lincoln in seeking “to bind up the nation’s wounds” and “to achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves.” Manipulating the next generation to disdain the American Founding will not accomplish this.
The 1619 Project, by selectively failing to highlight critical facts, is not a project to educate and enlighten, but to destroy and demean, and bury the actual principle that animated America’s greatness: individual rights.
The entire essay, America’s Founding Was Not Defined By Slavery and White Supremacy as NY Times’ 1619 Project Claims, is worth a read.