Friday, November 13, 2015

Patterns From the Left: Emily Blunt, Daniel Craig, Jennifer Lawrence, Quentin Tarantino, Matt Damon, Liam Neeson

To begin with, for all of our friends and readers in France, and those affected by the acts of terror, you are in our thoughts, prayers and hearts; may God bless you and keep you in this time of darkness, and may we all draw together, supporting one another in this time of such great sorrow.
When, Ms. Lawrence, did the Republican party keep you from getting food or water? When did the Republican party keep you from getting shelter? When did the Republican party prohibit you from getting a free, public education, or pursuing a higher education at the college level? When did the Republican party order you to quite acting? When did the Republican party take away your health insurance? When did the Republican party pass laws dictating what clothes you wear, or your hair styles? When has the Republican party forbidden you from speaking your mind? Ms. Lawrence needs to decide what she means by "basic rights," and then provide specific examples of when Republicans actually did this, and did this as a political platform instead of just making up reality like the eunuch and cross-dresser Bruce Jenner. It must be difficult when you are a multi-millionaire, Academy Award winner and white, to convince other liberals that you are a victim the way they are, but this is her lame attempt that has been wholly embraced by her fellow-victim-liberals. We have also seen the exact opposite of this trend of liberals sabotaging their pro-conservative films: liberals sabotaging the pro-conservative films of conservatives. Days before Bryan Singer's X-Men: Days Of Future Past came out, Singer was accused, falsely, of homosexual rape and molestation; again, the accusations were proven false, but they were made just before the exceedingly pro-capitalist film came out and I know many people who decided not to go see it because of the allegations even though Singer was innocent.
Luckily, a pattern has emerged that is too much of a coincidence to be purely coincidental. In the last couple of days, Jennifer Lawrence has pulled an incredible stunt before the opening of, perhaps. the biggest film of her career (Mockingjay Part 2 being the conclusion to The Hunger Games films which made her famous) as Emily Blunt did with the critically acclaimed Sicario and Daniel Craig with Spectre. Lawrence, like Blunt, has not just criticized Republicans, but demeaned them as well, as if,... as if,... she doesn't want Republicans to go see her film. This would sound like a conspiracy theory, I know, but that the same happened with Emily Blunt, and both actresses are in films which support the politically conservative, rather than the Leftist Liberals, it's as if she would rather the film suffer massive financial loss than for the swelling numbers of American conservatives to see the conclusion to The Hunger Games because,... the film will support conservatives, not liberals, and liberals do not want conservatives to be championed or validated in any of their political views.
Let's consider the other examples.
Just before Spectre was released, Daniel Craig went around in interviews saying he would rather slit his wrists than play Bond again, and acting like a big baby over playing this super-role that other actors would kill to get. Why would Craig, who has always put on such a professional face before in interviews, suddenly act so childish and unbecoming? Liberals stand a lot to lose from people seeing Spectre: it's all about the New World Order, on both an intimate scale, and the international scale. Sadly, the horrible bombings in Paris is calling to mind the very terror-planned activities discussed in  Spectre so if people did NOT see Spectre, then people would be so scared, they would beg their governments to monitor every single thing they do and say or, in the words of the film, create Orwell's worst nightmare; people who have seen Spectre, on the other hand, are less likely to give into excessive surveillance because we have been warned about what such a move could lead to and the power it will give a tiny, un-elected elite; in other words, seeing Spectre could create a resistance movement or give strength to the resistance movements that all ready exist. A liberal like Craig would just need a call from another liberal like Jane Fonda saying, Look, do something or say something so people won't go see this film; you have a contract to play Bond again for so much money, you aren't going to suffer anything, but the goal of the New World Order could suffer if too many people see this film. It wouldn't even take a phone call, just Craig deciding to keep people from seeing it and millions of people would not have the slightest clue about an imperative message of what is happening to us right now, literally, as the bombings in Paris demonstrate. 
People like to know that an actor enjoys portraying a hero, especially a hero whose films makes hundreds of millions  of dollars and a hero dearly loved by the populace. Imagine, if you will, if Chris Evans began cursing Steve Rogers and stating he would rather slit his wrists than play Captain America again. This is what Spectre star Daniel Craig did just days before the film's international release, and I know of more than one person who has avoided the film because of Craig's expressed attitude. Given that Spectre directly targets and battles the New World Order, which Republicans and conservatives in America fear is actually happening, a liberal like Craig might want to give people a reason not to see a film which articulates what they have feared all along. Why would Craig do this?
Just before Taken 3 came out, leading actor Liam Neeson came out condemning gun ownership in America and linking private gun ownership with all the school shootings. In response, conservatives boycotted what should have been a highly lucrative opening to the best film in the closing series but conservatives stayed home and refused to support Neeson's position. As of September 19, 2016, we see star of The Magnificent Seven remake, Ethan Hawke, stating that the film is about people banning together to fight Donald Trump; regardless of whether you support Trump or not, the fact that Hawke has obviously decided to stand against the millions and millions of people who do support Trump--again, this is irrelevant if you do or not--and lose their patronage at this film, is a sign of a "controlled dive," to borrow the phrase from the pro-socialist Independence Day: Resurgence. Hawke wants the film to do poorly at the box office, just like all these other stars and their films discussed herein; the difference is, The Magnificent Seven is actually pro-socialist, whereas most of the other films in the pattern being examined are pro-capitalist; so, why doesn't Hawke want Trump supporters to see the film? In this article, Hawke states that he thinks Trump would actually like the film, even though it's about people banning together to fight against him. It's a bit risky for me to say this, but I think I'm going to, because I do think actors are this dumb: I think they have finally decided to turn against the studios and are trying to destroy the studios with continuously low-returns at the box office. Personally, the actors are usually all multi-millionaires, so they are taken care of, but because studios can make films like Captain America and Batman vs Superman, I think actors are deliberately turning against the studios to undermine the way films have supported and re-enforced traditional American values; if you saw Hail Caesar! by the Cohen Brothers, you know that Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is ready to go against the studio just to make a little cash off his own kidnapping. If you are a capitalist, you are probably thinking, "Why on earth would they do that?" Because after the studios fail, the government will have to take care of them, and that's what they want. 
With all these stars in this pattern, the financial loss is minimal because mostly, they have all ready been paid (they usually receive some percentage of the gross, but their big payday has all ready been cashed in) and it's more important to them that their liberal friends in Hollywood--who might have given them the idea to bad-mouth the film/their role anyway--still like them and will offer them roles because they have been "brave" in spitting in the face of the evil enemy, the middle-class American conservative.
The most important thing for liberals is to be a victim; that is the driving goal of liberals, to become a victim, hopefully, of a white heterosexual male, or a business, but to be a victim is the greatest achievement for liberals, because then and only then is their perverse distortion of reality  finding some kind of basis which they think solidifies their positions. Remember, in Man Of Steel, young Clark is in the school bus and it's sinking, and all the kids are going to die unless Clark saves them; then his dad, Kevin Costner, gets upset with him, and Clark says, What was I supposed to do, let them die (what any conservative would say)? And Mr. Kent responds, "Maybe," and then we see him stop Clark from saving him when the tornado comes and kills him, because liberals want to be victims, of Hurricane Katrina, of feces smeared on the wall of a college building, of being called a slut, of school shootings (which are done by liberals),... conservatives can't understand this because we are self-sufficient and we are accountable, we respect ourselves and we respect others; you can't say any of these things about liberals. If they are victims, they aren't responsible for what they do and if they aren't responsible, they can't be held accountable, this is why, in spite of the massive corruption of the Obamas and Clintons, people still support them, because they don't want to be accountable for their actions, either, and if you have corrupt people running the country, you can be corrupt, too! Liberals don't value life, which is why they support abortion, and they don't value life because they don't want to be human, they want to be animals. They don't want to have a soul, they want to be controlled by their appetites for food, sex, drugs. The civil war in the US today isn't about political parties or legislation, it's about the most basic and fundamental understanding of what is reality and what is a human being. Again, for Republicans to boycott their films provides a two-fold "advantage" for a liberal: first, they have publicly insulted the conservatives, so they are held in esteem by other liberals and, two, since they have been boycotted, they are not "victims" of the Republicans because the Republicans have victimized them by an act of boycott; no, it doesn't matter that it was their own fault, because liberals aren't responsible for anything they do, but by "hurting" liberals, the destruction of the Republican party--and its individual members--is validated because of all the cruelty Republicans inflict upon poor, defenseless liberals. 
With Emily Blunt, the case might even be more serious: having watched the Republican debate, and knowing Republican front-runner Donald Trump's view on immigration, and that her film Sicario provides ample ammunition for anti-amnesty politics, if enough people saw the film, the events in the narrative might bolster Trump's standing in the Presidential election even more and the Left certainly doesn't want that, do they? To conservatives, the position of slandering the very people who would, otherwise, financially support your film, doesn't make any sense, so why would liberals be engaging in it?
Supposedly, Tarantino said that he would only make eight films and then stop; so Hateful Eight is his last film. Why would he want police officers, and those who support police officers, to boycott his film? Self-righteous superiority. I will say this: Tarantino knows how to make films, he has a very high standard for himself and he understands movies; I won't say that he hasn't made his fair-share of bad films, however, he's a solid film maker. Unfortunately, he's using his films, like Django Unchained, to incite riots and the very activities which would unravel the culture which makes creating his art possible. This is part of the never-ending, self-destructive phase of liberalism: they want to destroy society and create some kind of utopia in its place, the problem is, the enemies they choose--middle-class Americans--are far better adjusted than they are and prove to have far more skills at self-preservation, so they win. Given the liberals most dangerous weapon is that of mocking anyone who disagrees with them, they reveal how dumb and uneducated they are, so those who might have stayed around to support them, end up jumping ship so as not to get dragged down with them. Again, Tarantino is delighted that police will boycott because now he, too, can claim that he has been a victim of "police brutality" like Trayvon Martin, and this makes him "one of the blacks" he hopes will identify with him, even though the men in the photograph have no more in common with Tarantino than Tarantino's black clothing makes him a black person. Tarantino's cult status as a victim is his own grandiose apotheosis as a revolutionary, and that means more to him than anymore millions of dollars he has all ready made. 
Film is art, and when there is an occupying force trying to subjugate a people into slavery and oblivion, one of the first acts the aggressors will take is that of destroying the culture's art because it holds their values and their identity, their art is what brings them together and defines them as a particular people and the rules of their society. By taking away our heroes, the Left has tried to make us forget what leadership is (Thor sacrificing himself to save his people is leadership, not a speech made beside a golf cart in Martha's Vineyard), or what white heterosexual men have contributed to our society rather than making them out to be the 1% of society's most evil power-holders (did the Left celebrate Charles Koch's coming out as a liberal? I didn't hear about people surrounding him and saying how "brave" he was for announcing that he's a Democrat).
Apart from The Martian, Matt Damon's film career has seriously been lagging, so badly, he's having to go back to the Bourne franchise to get a new hit; unfortunately, it's probably DOA. In a recent interview, Damon, like Neeson, also dissed gun owners, so I don't expect Jason Bourne will have the kind of opening they have been hoping for. 
In short, there is a pattern of liberals who appear to be intentionally initiating boycotts of their films so as not to support the conservative outlook, and that suggests we should see the films in spite of such petty strategies because we will gain far more from the experience and be strengthened in our positions and beliefs, which is the last thing they want.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
Just a few weeks before the 50th anniversary release of Star Trek Beyond, film makers went on record bragging about the character Sulu being depicted as gay. It's quite possible that this, too, is a sabotage attempt at diverting people away from seeing films that would support the conservative cause. At the release of The Secret Lives Of  Pets, a decidedly anti-socialist film, Dr. Jason Johnson of Ohio took to his blog and ranted about the "white privilege and black pain" the movie mocks, in hopes that people would boycott; why would he do this? Because the film is so anti-Obama, he doesn't want people to see it, which is really the point of all these liberal shenanigans in turning-off conservative audience members from their films.