Saturday, August 3, 2013

The 'New' Founding Fathers: The Purge & Releasing the Beast

What is so ironic about the anti-capitalist film The Purge is how successfully capitalist it is. With an estimated budget at a mere $3 million, it's opening weekend exceeding $34 million (an international grossing of around $65 million at the time of this posting), it's being hailed as a precedent-setting formula for all of Hollywood to follow. The problem is the plague of conceptual liabilities the film perpetuates in erecting a capitalist utopia in the starkest terms imaginable, and we can clearly see the falsifications of capitalism not being mirrored in reality, propelling The Purge into propaganda. Instead of calling the film The Purge, it could be called The Hunger Games Continued.
But let's start with the not-so-distant future,....
(We will discuss the "mask" qualities of the poster in a caption below). What is done cleverly about the film is the title, The Purge. Usually associated with socialist/communist politics, "purging" refers to removing unwanted members from the ranks who have failed to maintain loyalty to the Party, as with the Chinese Communists' Shanghai massacre of 1927Hitler's purging of his socialist party known as the Night of the Long Knivesthe general socialist Soviet cultural murders known as the CPSU purges, the periodic purges conducted by the Czechoslovakia Communist Party, historical purges against Jews--especially those of the Holocaust--the continual Maoist purges in communist China and purges under communist leader Joseph Stalin's Great Purge of the late 1930s (we could say that Obama "purged" his cabinet at the end of his first election when he replaced so many of his top staff, such as Hillary Clinton). So, the "genius" of the anti-capitalist film is to take a term usually associated with socialism ("purge") and apply it instead to a "capitalist utopia," and show the audience how they themselves are guilty of purging their fellow man, not the socialists. An interpretation of capitalism in this vein is possible (but not realistic) on two different levels: first, for a socialist, any competition--upon which the market principles of capitalism are based--is like killing another person; when one business succeeds in outselling another business, it's not "business," it's actually murder (I know this is ridiculous, but this is the kind of case socialists are trying to make, and we also see this in The Hunger Games, with the "arena" where the Games take place being a metaphor for the free market and the killing of children by other children is their understanding of "competition"; please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism for more). The second level of interpretation is the idea of a company not doing well--such as the auto industry--and capitalists allowing the company to either re-organize, declare bankruptcy or go out of business rather than receive government assistance to "keep it afloat" when it can't make money; for capitalists, keeping an unhealthy business in business weakens the market and diverts government resources away from important programs, so to socialists, this is an act of purging and we saw this (in a successful capitalist scenario) in Evil Dead when Natalie becomes "infected" with the demon and she cuts her arm off with the electric knife to stop the infection (we see a similar act in World War Z, however, that's an anti-capitalist film and is not applicable here directly; for more on Evil Dead, please see Cutting Your Face With Glass: Evil Dead for more). The film makers have taken these two concepts in capitalism and blown them up to create the America we see in the film, but is this the case? Even interpreting capitalism in its most base terms, the upper-class requires the presence of a "working class" to run the factories, staff the offices, sell the goods, etc., so where on earth does the advantage come from in killing your work force? The second  NOT DONE
The year is 2022 and "New Founding Fathers" have decreed that there will be an annual purge. How does this happen? 2022 isn't so far away, and--as detailed in the caption above--purging is usually associated with socialists, so how do we get to this state of national purging in America and a set of "new" founding fathers? The low unemployment, low crime and high-standard of living advertised at the start of the film are associated with capitalists--most especially since James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) has exceeded his company's sales quota and has prospered financially, not something we associate with Obama--so we might piece together this interesting scenario to get us to the America presented in 2022 as the capitalists (like myself) getting exactly what they want in America,...
"All emergency services suspended," why? Because this is the socialist response to capitalists wanting "smaller government," no government at all. If you want a real capitalist world, the film argues, this is what you are going to get: chaos. Only the government is big enough to save you and protect you, you don't want to have to protect yourself from other capitalists who are as corrupt and greedy as you are, do you? Again, one really can't say I am reading too much into this because news reports play in the background of the film where experts discuss the drawbacks of the purge and how it's the lower class who suffers most (those who think they are in favor of socialism). Here's an interesting contradiction the film makes, however: if there is only 1% unemployment, who in the upper-class is going to purge their work base in the lower class? You can't run a factory if there are no workers to work in it, and you can't sell cheeseburgers if there is no one there to buy them; this isn't the reason why capitalists are against population control, but it's a bit of common sense obviously escaping the film makers. De-population and population control ARE part of the SOCIALIST AGENDA, just look at China with their one-child and forced sterilization policy; while under communism, the Soviet Union had the highest abortion rate in the world; North Korea? No one even knows. On the contrary, when have there EVER been purges in the United States? Besides the Civil War, and radical demonstrations led by liberals in the 1960s, when have Americans ever turned their guns against other Americans? When has the government turned its guns against its own citizens? It doesn't but that's a common, day-to-day reality in communist countries.  
We can construct a "real-world scenario" along these lines: the film makers want us to see what "radical capitalists" (like myself) would do to "un-do" the "changes" made by the Obama Administration and make sure America stay a capitalist country (this isn't so radical because America all ready did this post-World War II with the Dwight Eisenhower Administration as a response to the crimes against humanity committed by socialism and making sure America stayed a capitalist country, as pictured by The Hunger Games in their commentary; please see The Hunger Games: Hitler & America's Anti-Socialism for more). The Purge, then, can be seen as a political scenario reacting against the Obama Administration if capitalists (like Mitt Romney in the 2012 election) took political control back and created a capitalist utopia, "born anew" from the socialist regime instituted by Obama. But the film holds out hope for people afraid of this "radical capitalism,"...
Several of the characters in the film have an "alternate ego," or a psychoanalytic double, i.e., another character demonstrates what the main character would become based upon the choices they make during the narrative. For example, as James Sandin validates the purge and what it does, there is a glass bowl of dominoes behind him; why? Just like one domino falling and causing a chain reaction of other dominoes falling over, so Charlie bringing in the Bloody Stranger will trigger the rest of the night's events; the dominoes being in a glass bowl communicates the "reflective nature" of those events (the dominoes could have been piled or stacked, or in a box, or there could have just been a drawing of one, etc., but they were put all together in a glass bowl for a reason). Because glass "reflects," it symbolizes a character "reflecting" upon themselves and what they are going to do, as with the dim/flat reflection of James in the image above (the steel door and "eye slit" he peers through turns the door into his own mask, just like the ones of the purgers outside [again, we see his distorted reflection against the door, so we are supposed to "reflect" on how the door reflects him as a character]; if you will notice, in the upper-right corner of the image, there are shadows like prison bars on the door, suggesting that--far from giving James and his family freedom--capitalism has "enslaved" James into his identity and his home because he is now being forced to protect his home and we have seen how a home becomes a terrible burden for a family all ready in The Conjuring, where personal property is savagely attacked by the film makers). So, the film sets us up for a meditative examination of James; how does it accomplish this? The Bloody Stranger represents one way James can be while the Polite Leader (the blond purger) who talks to James through the door speaker is another (because we, like characters in art, cannot remain static, we and characters are dynamic, changing with events according to our values and morals). James mentions to Mary (Lena Headey) how they couldn't afford their rent just a few years ago, and now they are getting a boat; this reminder of "being on the bottom" of the economic ladder is meant to remind James how he, like the Bloody Stranger, was once on the bottom, and now that there is a group of bloody purgers at his house (and their neighbors coming later) James can either identify with the "purgers of capitalism" or be a protector of the lower-class.   
The "hero" of the film is the Bloody Stranger (his official title, portrayed by Edwin Hodge, pictured below) who gets into the Sandin home on the run from a group of masked purgers. Why is he the hero of the film, and not James Sandin? For two reasons: first, if the Bloody Stranger hadn't entered the Sandins' lives, they would have passed the night watching a movie (like us in the audience, as the bloody purge of capitalism takes place in the box office while films bloodily compete for the number one spot,...) but because of his presence, James Sandin undergoes a conversion and is forced to change his priorities. It's not that James Sandin dying protects his family or makes him a hero; James dies because "he was all ready dead," according to the well-established rules of horror films. James dies because he's a capitalist and a bigger capitalist, the Polite Leader (as he is called, played by Rhys Wakefield), kills him because that's how capitalism works and the film wants capitalists out there to know capitalism is going to kill everyone. The second reason the Bloody Stranger is the hero is because he symbolizes Obama.
Edwin Hodge portrays the character of the film called the Bloody Stranger.  There are at least two reasons why the Bloody Stranger is black: first, because The Purge wants all minorities to identify with this minority to realize that capitalism is bad for them (because, after all, socialists tell us, you are nothing except what the color of your skin is and what is or is not in between your legs): minorities are on the bottom of the social/economic ladder (the socialists want them to believe) and they are going to stay on the bottom or just die (a point directly argued by the film 42 about Jackie Robinson; please see Real Racism: 42 & Dimensions Of the American Dream for more). What did the Bloody Stranger do to get a group of masked, white purgers after him? Silly, don't you know? He's black! Of course white people are going to come and lynch him, because that's what capitalism was created for (socialists and the liberal media want us to believe, anyway) and the annual Purge was created to kill all the poor and minorities, because that is the natural, full expression of what capitalism is. Secondly, we are supposed to link in our minds this black man with the most prominent black man in the world right now, Barack Hussein Obama. Why would a group of purgers be after Obama? To impeach him; why? Because he's trying to do away with capitalism and "purges" like the one in the film. It has nothing to do with what Obama has or has not done in office, white people want to impeach Obama so they can lynch him. How else can we say he's like Obama? Well, there are really only two other things we know about him. First, he's "bloody," and Obama certainly has blood on his hands, from all the Americans he has willingly allowed to die in Fast and Furious/Benghazi, to those he has had killed oversees (so much so, that people in the Middle East and Ireland are calling him a war criminal who needs to be brought to trial for all the people he's killing; you haven't heard about it? I guess there is greater freedom of the press in other countries than here today. Obama is a man of blood not only because of the people he has killed, but those he is willing to kill, like myself, to enforce his socialist agenda, and the film embraces this aspect of his identity (please recall the three identities of socialism Star Trek Into Darkness explored, including Kahn's military presence; please see The Enemy Of My Enemy: Star Trek Into Darkness and the Socialist Trinity for more). Secondly, we see he has dog tags on, implying he has been in the military, which we know Obama hasn't been, but he is the Commander In Chief and uses the military to carry out his agenda, including against citizens of this country. So the military is only good if it's working for Obama, otherwise, it's bad because it promotes capitalism.
As I stated above, the film presupposes capitalists would want to un-do what Obama has done (with Obamacare, for example, or the NSA, or Fast and Furious, or illegal arms to rebels in the Middle East, restoring our Constitutional rights, getting rid of drones, the right to kill/detain Americans without a trial, etc.,), so the masked purgers going after a "black man on the run" symbolize white, middle-to-upper class Christian Americans (like myself) who want to impeach Obama and preserve their way of life (because of my morals and values, I would be included in this group). So what does this do to the hero of the Bloody Stranger? It reveals the kind of people who support him: children.
"Grace" (left) and "Mary" (right) are named thusly to mock Christians like myself, because there is neither "grace" nor Mary-like Christian virtue in either character, however, their names--along with the "false prayer" said in honor of the New Founding Fathers for the annual purge--clearly demonizes Christians because Christians tend to support capitalism and the Constitution, so anyone who is Christian must be evil (there are--without a doubt--Christians who support Obama, abortion, socialism, etc, but they are also people who do not, as Christ commanded, "love God above all things," rather, put everything else before God and let's the weight of that "mold" God in an expedient image they can live with). Grace clearly draws out a facet of capitalism that capitalists don't recognize: envy. Grace tells Mary that they have taken all the money they made off their neighbors, like Grace herself, and built up their huge home, to throw it in the face of everyone; is this what the Sandins did? Has a situation like this ever happened to you, or someone you know? Grace's obvious lack of Christian virtue is exactly how the film makers see Christians: lacking any virtue, just as when Grace's purge party comes to "save" Mary, Charlie and Zoey, only to try and kill them their selves (and who is it saving Mary, Charlie and Zoey from their greedy, upper-class neighbors? Obama, i.e., the Bloody Stranger, who will do away with capitalism). Why does Mary break Grace's nose at the end of the film? To deface Grace and everything she has come to symbolize for one thing, but also to brainwash us, the audience, that it's acceptable to do that to "Christians" or people who have envied us, so the film isn't describing an inherent "class warfare" that was all ready in place before Obama came to office, rather, like Obama's race agitating, The Purge seeks to rip apart class relations and sow division that can be exploited at the right time.
Charlie Sandin seems to be a good kid, something of an outcast, cerebral and emotional. He's the one who, hearing the Bloody Stranger's cry for help, disarms the family's elaborate home defense system so the Bloody Stranger can get in. No one else in the house would have let him in (even Zoey, being wrapped-up in the drama of her life) and James and Mary certainly work to capture him so they can turn him over and save themselves. So why does Charlie let him in? For three reasons: one, Charlie can be played upon emotionally (as we see with most liberals: they don't think through issues, they "feel" through issues, like abortion); secondly, Charlie doesn't have anything to lose (he's not a homeowner or property owner like his father we see "trapped" above) and, thirdly, Charlie knows nothing about the world or history. Just like Charlie's alter ego Timmy (the naked baby in the electronic walker who spies on people like the Obama Administration) Charlie is injured/abused by his "dysfunctional" relationship with his parents (of course, anyone who supports capitalism is going to have abused children because the parents support killing, which is what capitalism does, the film argues, so even if parents don't directly kill anyone, they support others doing it). So, the film acknowledges that grown adults don't support socialism/Obama, just the kids who are making life decisions they aren't old enough to make, because the state they are going to support will make those decisions for them. But on to the second "clever" aspect of the film,...
Zoey Sandin, the eldest child of James and Mary, presents a rather startling scenario to the picture. Her boyfriend, Henry, is disapproved of by James because he's too old for her. We can say, but don't have to, that Henry symbolizes another "Obama" figure in the film because Obama's Administration has taken so much control of children away from parents and invested that control in the state as with younger and younger girls being able to get abortions and contraceptives without the knowledge of their parents; Zoey's intimate physical relationship with Henry makes this an immediate concern. For example, in the image above, Zoey is forced to hide "under her bed" where we had earlier seen her on top of the bed with Henry. The message to high-school girls Zoey's age, and who would identify with her, seems to be that, you can either be with a hot guy who knows you are mature, or your dumb white dad who thinks you are still a baby; but if you go on with capitalism, you face being raped by a deranged capitalist (the Polite Leader who wants Zoey for himself, and whose foot we see in the image above)  and then not being able to get an abortion because they want you to suffer with the curse of a child and the burden of child care. 
When capitalists think of the word "entitlement," it is usually in the form of public assistance administered by Democrat-sponsored government in the form of welfare, Obama-phones, free contraceptives, tax-payer paid abortions, Obamacare, extended unemployment benefits, free housing, etc., in other words, goods or services for which a person did not work nor pay but expects is their right to receive. In The Purge, however, the Polite Leader tells James Sandin he is "entitled" to purge, flipping the term from a socialist agenda to getting supporters through "freebies," to capitalism and an upper-class snot claiming he has the right to kill another human being. If you are a supporter of capitalism, have you EVER thought this?
The Polite Leader. Why is he called "the Polite Leader," his prey is the "Bloody Stranger," the masked purgers are officially called "Freaks?" Because that's a slip the film makes in how it views people: a name is a part of our identity, and not needing to identify people by name reveals how the film makers don't look at people as people, but as animals. We saw a similar "slip" in The Conjuring with Bathsheba the female witch actually being played by a man, and the female family dog Sadie actually being played by a male dog Dusty; sure, it's not that big of a deal, but given the driving forces of socialism to undo all things natural--like the natural order of sexuality, and that we have identities--it starts adding up, and these "little slips" are the places such big truths are apt to be revealed. When this group arrives on the heels of the Bloody Stranger, wearing their masks (discussion on the masks below the image of the group of purgers), the Polite Leader rings the Sandin doorbell and tells Mr. Sandin, we are a group of fine, young and very educated guys and gals, things took a turn, you have inexplicably given him (the Bloody Stranger) sanctuary, the pig, so we may purge as we are entitled, we can enter any home we want, but we don't want to kill our own. What is this about? Well, The Purge not only wants to demonize the upper-class (I mean, he's wearing a tie, so he must be upper-class, right?) but enforce their belief that all whites are racist. If you are white, like I am myself, you are a racist that's all there is to it. So this purge to get rid of Obama (one of the film's two agendas, the other being to turn people off capitalism and material wealth) is driven by race, white supremacy and class warfare.
Here's an example, though, of how unrealistic socialists view reality. My sister, after fifteen years in business in our hometown, has finally become the leader in her specialty. Due to various circumstances, including savvy investing, good quality, advertising, great customer service, and two of her competitors selling out to less-business minded people, she's number one in the city. By a socialist definition, she has "killed, murdered, purged" all the others with the blessing of the law, to get on top. Because capitalism has been the operating method of the land, socialists argue (just like in The Hunger Games) capitalists view themselves as being "entitled" to out-perform another business and get on top. In its way, it's a clever argument, but obviously breaks down when you hold it against the light of reality and what business really does; why would socialists make this argument to begin with? Because they don't look at humans as humans; "humans" don't exist, only animals, and anyone who dares to think of themselves as humans are obviously superstitious and full of themselves. There are only animals and animals exist to do the bidding of the government, and the government is justified to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to wipe out its enemies and sustain a police state. That's socialism and that's what The Purge wants to achieve in making this film. How can we say the film supports this?
By the way James Sandin dies.
Once again, we witness James finding his home to be a "prison" rather than a safe refuge, because liberals are intent on waging a war against personal property and wealth; it's not just the 1%--the Sandins are wealthy, but they aren't anywhere near the 1% targeted by Occupy Wall Street and Obama--these are just upper-middle or lower-upper class members of society who are being targeted by "other members" of the same class; is this what happens? In Pain and Gain, we saw the upper-class being targeted, but by the greed and envy of the lower-class who didn't want to be "contributing members of society," just rich. James provides an actual service to people in providing them with home security systems they want, so the film kills him for it.
As we have said on numerous occasions, a character in a work of art does not die unless they are "all ready dead," something about the character, their decisions, morality, behavior, etc., what that character symbolizes, has to be destroyed by the narrative in order for "harmony" and resolution to be achieved so the piece can be brought to a conclusion (yes, this is true even when a "good character" dies, because something about the character couldn't be adapted to the future; we will discuss this in GI Joe Retaliation and the death of Duke Hauser). Each member of the family faces death at least two times throughout the night, but James is the only Sandin to die, so, in spite of James deciding not to give up the Bloody Stranger to the Polite Leader, and fighting them off and defending his family, he still dies--the film still deems him a character not worthy to live--and it's the few seconds before his fatal injury relating to us why: he identifies with the purgers.
Why do the purgers wear masks? Why do they wear the masks they wear? Simple, because all capitalists wear masks. Every person in the Sandin neighborhood, according to the film, wears a polite mask of success and well-being, of happiness and prosperity. They all wear white masks, because capitalists are always white (even the black neighbor of the Sandins' who joins Grace's purge party to kill the family, he's white, too, liberals argue, because he's conservative, so he doesn't count; yes, they would actually say that).  They have blond hair and good looks because capitalism has a very narrow definition of what beauty is. Actually, we have seen this exact argument also in The Conjuring and the doll Annabell, with her blue eyes and blond hair; the original possessed doll was a Raggedy-Ann type-doll, so the studio took lots of liberties with the historical record on that, to make it look like capitalists are all fair skinned, with blue eyes and blond hair; but where do we really remember that kind of genetic profiling taking place? The Nazis, who were German socialists, and the Holocaust to exterminate all people of "non-Aryan" race; it's in the film Pacific Rim, and the machine Gypsy Danger that we find the capitalist response, because when even the smallest group of minorities civil rights are endangered, like the gypsies subjected to the cruelest medical experiments and tortures under the Nazis, then we are all in danger, and we must all fight to protect every one's civil rights and liberties; socialists, on the other hand, just want to take rights and liberties, because they get in their way.
The last thing James does before he receives the fatal injury from the Polite Leader is look at a female purger whose mask has come off and he sees her as a human being, not a "masked, nameless, blob of tissue" who needed to be executed because she was trying to impeach Obama (symbolically), but as a human like himself. Socialists don't see people as humans, but as animals, and anyone not being able to see their self, family and society at large as full of animals, is of no value to the state. Now the film wants you to believe that James dies because he's being careless and isn't brutal enough, however, we have to recall an important detail: it's in the "game room" where James kills several purgers and receives his decisive blow. "Games," like baseball, are founded upon "competition," which socialists HATE because socialists are almost always mediocrities and don't excel at anything so they become socialists. In the game room, fighting off the purgers has ceased to become a matter of principle for protecting the Bloody Stranger from the purgers, it has become "a game" of winning and being better than the other purgers at killing. That's the first reason James has to die, because his character reveals himself to be a purger/capitalists after all; the second reason James Sandin must die is because he's a white male.
In the beginning of the film, Mary plays with her wedding ring several times, like she's unconsciously twisting it off, undoing her marriage. Why? Well, she's soon to be single and the film wants her to make a new marriage to Obama, the man who could defend her (the 2012 Obama re-election campaign was targeted at women and minorities and promoted how Obama had defended women's rights to abortion and free contraception). As of this time, there is The Purge 2 being made, although I know nothing else about it; why is there a sequel for the film makers? Because this was such a capitalistic success.
As we have said numerous times--because the socialist films keep making the same point--the dominant power holders in a country (in the case of America, white males) must be defaced, defamed and vilified so the minorities will feel victimized and rise up, creating the force behind the revolution. We have seen this in World War Z: you can't look at Constitution-supporters, patriots, Christians, pro-lifers, capitalists or conservatives in general--anyone not a socialist--as a human being because they aren't; they are the enemy, and must be destroyed because they are infected with false doctrine and can't be converted. Mary survives because she isn't as into their "stuff" as James is, and the children survive of course because children support socialism because they can't draw upon history, reality nor personal experience to know any better. So, what does the film fail at doing?
Obviously, there is a proliferation of guns and other weapons in the film, directly meant to make you fear guns; is that what happens though? No, you're thankful when a character has the good sense to pick up a gun, or has all ready had one. Even though the film wants you to abhor the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment--you should just want the police department to show up and make all the bad things go away--that's not what happens, it makes you want to go get a gun if you don't all ready have one. This bungling by the film highlights one of the fundamental problems facing all the anti-capitalist films we have been seeing: they can accuse capitalism up and down of all kinds of horrors and sins, but they can't say anything good about socialism, nor promise that socialism will cure and heal society, they can only make fun of people like myself, like what Bill Maher and Tina Fey are paid to do. 
The film can't help but reveal its own philosophy beneath the facade of the "horrors of capitalism" it desperately tries to convey to the audience. For example, Zoey doesn't have any role in the film apart from a sex object, first for her father (to protect her from other men), from Henry her boyfriend who makes out with her, to the Polite Leader who wants to rape her; we see the same problem with the anti-capitalist Jack the Giant Slayer, when the princess also fails to do anything but "get into trouble," and it reveals just how poorly socialists actually think of women (remember, Mary doesn't save her family from Grace's wrath, the male does, and Zoey can't save her dad, and even the women purgers (shown above) are just wearing night gowns, like Bathsheba the witch in The Conjuring; please see An Acquired Taste For Acquiring Things: Jack the Giant Slayer and The Devil's Hour: The Conjuring & Demonic Possessions for more). None of the women in the film have any real power because socialists don't believe in "equal rights for women," they just believe in using women to get the additional votes they need and feminists are happy to do that. What about the lower-classes in the film?
Liberals hate America, and this film, with the flag, with talk of the "New Founding Fathers," and the prayer that's said to "bless them," is all meant to mock the principles upon which this country was founded and has thrived, until Obama. Why? So that you come to hate America, too; so you don't feel safe unless the government has a camera on you and your family in the living room, and there are armed guards on every corner of every neighborhood. That's not the American Dream, and we know it. The American Dream is about the freedom to do what you are good at, be the person you are meant to be, worship freely, and live in safety from your government's tyranny or your neighbor's. 
Please recall, that it's mentioned in the film that the annual purge was instituted after the biggest economic crash in history--probably the Obama Administration in general, with the $16 trillion dollar debt, bankrupt businesses and cities, like Detroit--and after Obama has been kicked out, there is the lowest crime rate (because people obviously have their guns and freedom of religion) and exceedingly low unemployment, only 1%, so that 1% is a tiny "lower class," so low, in fact, that the principle of capitalism has worked and the class system has been flipped from what the Occupy Wall Street movement decried about the 1% of privileged Americans, now there is only 1% of Americans not working but the film sets itself up for this criticism: an expert on a newscast says, the "non-contributing members of society" are being eliminated. This phrase is The Purge's undoing.
Why are blue flowers put out as a sign of support for the annual purge? We know that, like all colors, blue has a dual meaning: it refers to depression or sadness ("I am feeling blue today" because the light of happiness isn't shining in your life) and it's also the color of wisdom, because the path of wisdom is often a sad one filled with suffering. The blue flowers, we can say, are a sign that people acknowledge the purging is "sad," but there is wisdom behind it: "Think of all the good the purge does." There is actually one more reason why James Sandin must die: when he has the Bloody Stranger tied and gagged, James tells him to "be a man" and go out there and face the purgers wanting to kill him instead of dying like a coward. Yes, James has to die for using the phrase, "be a man." Manliness and masculinity is bad, because it's what created American society and makes men think they can be the dominant partner in relationships and government; the ideal man is Armie Hammer's portrayal of the Lone Ranger: a wishy-washy wimp who isn't manly but just,... there. So the more James Sandin "mans up" to protect his home and family, the more he's condemned to die.
Ronald Reagan said, we should measure success by how many people get off welfare, not how many people have been put on. What does the Obama Administration boast? In November 2008, there were only 31 million people on food stamps; today, it's 46.37 million, a 44% increase "since the president took office in 2009" according to CNBC. While capitalists deplore the increase in dependency upon the government, liberals see it as a positive thing, from the same article:

Liberal commentator Alan Colmes, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Tuesday, cites the expansion as a key achievement of the Obama administration, as participants "only stay on it an average of nine months" and circulate $1.73 back into the economy for each food stamp dollar spent. (Emphasis added)

"Achievement" has never been measured that way before, not in America. What's really being lamented in The Purge is the voter base for Democrats, because people having a job and working are not going to want to pay higher taxes, which is the necessary platform for Democrats because all their agendas--even abortions--start with higher taxes. The Purge laments that the "non-contributing members" of society are being eliminated because there are jobs being created, not that the upper-class is killing them, and Democrats aren't going to get back into office to crash the country again.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner