“SOUND OF FREEDOM” REVIEW
I have been aware for some time that the Times’ editorial policy differs greatly from my own views, but I’m equally aware and truly appreciate that you publish opposing views, much to your credit. There are limits to my willingness to overlook differences, however. These limits have been reached with Shira Li Bartov’s review of the movie “Sound of Freedom.” To resort to discrediting an eye-opening expose of the horrors of child trafficking by connecting the star, Jim Caviezel, to QAnon and to blood libels and conspiracy theories, as well as by casting aspersions on the hero, Tim Ballard, represents a new low in Leftist McCarthyism, guilt by association. And it echoes the approach taken by Noah Berlatsky in his review for Bloomberg, republished by the Washington Post, and by the New York Times, which is perhaps the leading purveyor of antisemitism west of the United Nations. Anyone who wants to read the details of these “reviews” can find them in Yudi Sherman’s article of July 25 in Frontline News. (Kindly spare me the ad hominem attacks on Frontline News publisher Dr. Simone Gold, who has endured political persecution to the tune of 60 days’ hard prison time for trespassing in the Capitol on January 6, for having dared to defy the “party line” on COVID-19 before the truth came out.)
How does the syllogism in this review differ, from say, disparaging any movie whose screenplay was written by any of the Hollywood Ten? Should Dalton Trumbo’s 1957 Oscar for Best Screenplay for “The Brave Ones,” written under the pseudonym Robert Rich, have been rescinded? Or Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize for covering up Stalin’s role in the Ukraine famine of the early 1930’s for — guess who — the New York Times? I know this is a “what about” argument, but does that make it any less valid?
The bottom line is that such movie reviews appear to be a diversion to deflect attention from the open-border policy of the current administration that makes it convenient for the human traffickers and fentanyl smugglers to ply their trade. The avoidance of the substance of the movie, except for vague allegations that the problem is exaggerated, speaks volumes, as does the fact that a great majority of the 91 comments about the review defend the movie. As usual, we can trust the basic decency of everyday Americans to refute the dissembling of our privileged elites.
I’m left with the question of how to justify continuing to blog on this platform. There wouldn’t be any problem if I had any evidence that people read what I write, let alone that it affects their thinking. I see one comment on my previous post “Through the Looking Glass,” but otherwise there hasn’t been much reaction since the first few months. Perhaps it would be best for all concerned if I were to take my social commentary to another venue and limit myself here to an occasional parsha or other Judaica post. Let the readers decide.