Oliver Stone and Confederate Monuments

by Jon N. Hall8/27/17
Some conservatives may have issues with Hollywood director Oliver Stone. But in the wake of the recent horror in Charlottesville and the uproar over Confederate statues, I’m reminded of the segment in his 2017 The Putin Interviews when Stone ventures out into Red Square to visit the Kremlin Wall Necropolis. He strolls past the graves of Brezhnev, Dzerzhinsky, Andropov, and then comes upon the resting place of one Joseph Stalin, heavyweight contender for the title of History’s Biggest Monster. Standing before Stalin’s grave with its accompanying statue, Stone said this (source, pdf-page 31):

The most famous, uh, villain in history next to Adolf, according to many people, Joseph Stalin. To the people on the, of the revolution in the left, for which, uh, communism meant a change, and better change for the workers, he was a disaster in the sense that he left a horrible reputation, uh, and stained the ideology forever.

That reminded me of the scene in Stone’s 1994 Natural Born Killers where two longhaired teen boys are asked for TV what they think about Mickey and Mallory, the movie’s glamorous celebrity killers:

BOY 1: I’m not saying, you know, I believe in mass murder or that shit, but … don’t get us wrong.

BOY 2: Yeah, you know, we respect human life and all.

BOY 1: But, if I was a mass murderer, I’d be Mickey and Mallory.

Yes, but isn’t which mass murderer one wants to be really just a matter of taste, i.e. personal preferences? Watch this video for 12 seconds if the dialog amuses you. And now back to Oliver Stone in Red Square:

Uh, wh– it’s mixed with blood and, and terror. But he did play a huge role in World War Two, and was a very close ally with, uh, the U.S. during World War Two. M-Mister Trotsky, no? Where is he? Ask– no Trotsky, right? Stalin, uh, managed to erase, uh, Trotsky’s memory. He ended up being killed in Mexico by Stalin’s agents. Let’s go. On Stalin. He said that, you know, he’s said negative things about Stalin, uh, and of course, he’s widely condemned in the world. But, at the same time, we all know that he lead, uh, Russia to victory over Germany, over fascism. And, uh, what does he make of that, by, by, uh, let’s say that ambiguity?

Confession: Despite his leftist politics, I admire some of Stone’s films; e.g. I think he did a fine job on Nixon, (my favorite progressive). I couldn’t find a video of his stroll in Red Square, but here’s a short video of where Stone was; you’ll notice the bust of “Uncle Joe,” as FDR was fond of calling him.

I cannot confirm whether history is being taught properly in post-Soviet Russia, but if there are any Russians who still revere Stalin, I’d bet they have one foot in the grave, but maybe not. And Stalin’s not the only monster honored in death; the mummified remains of Lenin are nearby, (which Stone visited, as I recall). One doubts that Russians think highly of Napoleon Bonaparte, who brought ruin to much of Europe. The French, however, still seem to lionize him, even naming a pastry and a cognac after him. And lest we forget, on May Day the Chinese are treated to Mao’s image, another world leader lackadaisical about human life.

The point of dragging The Putin Interviews (trailer) into the current flap over Confederate monuments is to show that other nations — that many in the Left think are ever so much nicer than America — continue to honor mass-murdering tyrants through their statuary. And the crimes of these still-celebrated thugs are far worse than anything military leaders of the Old South ever committed.

Everyone in America now agrees that slavery is a monstrous crime. But is it as monstrous as deliberately starving millions of citizens as Stalin did in Ukraine? The pyramids of ancient Egypt were built with slave labor; should they be pulled down along with statues of Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson?

Americans who think the most important thing we can do right now is to pull down a bunch of statues might consider that what they want to do with rebel monuments is exactly what Stalin did do: erase history. Stalin was known for airbrushing out every new persona non grata from official photos. The murderous Khmer Rouge also had ways of nullifying history:

The idea behind Year Zero was that the existing society within Cambodia had to be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture had to replace it from scratch. All history of the nation [before] Year Zero was deemed largely irrelevant and had to be purged and replaced from the ground up.

Ideas like Year Zero are old; French revolutionaries had their Year One, and even started their own calendar. (The past must go.) I don’t know if any statues of Pol Pot exist in today’s Cambodia, but his method was all about destroying the past, and starting over. We should hope that is not “who we are.”

Stone speaks of “ambiguity” with regard to Stalin. The ability to grapple with ambiguity has never been the strong suit of the Left. One wonders if any in the anti-Confederate statues mob ever dons a Che Guevara T-shirt. And consider the rich ambiguity of tax scofflaw “Reverend” Al Sharpton complaining of how tax dollars are being used to pay for the maintenance of rebel statuary.

Nowadays, many Americans seem to be offended by just about everything. But we have no God-given right not to be offended. Conservatives were offended by the inane utterances of Barack Obama for eight years, but we soldiered on. Before the South seceded, Johnny Reb was our fellow countryman, even our brother. We must learn to live with uncomfortable ambiguities, such as this one: The greatest political minds in history were America’s Founders, and some of them owned slaves. So get over it. It’s time for the mob to move on.

America has so many huge problems right now — dysfunctional government, terrorism, stealth jihad, the rollover of federal debt (which starts in earnest in October), the opioid crisis, you name it — that one might think that folks wouldn’t have time to worry about nonthreatening things like old statues. But no, the Left wants to control the narrative, the language, and the past.

As they say in the upper reaches of Westeros: the North remembers. And so should we all, especially our history.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (650 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Oliver Stone and Confederate Monuments

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    According to R. J. Rummel’s Democide, Stalin and Mao each killed far more people than Hitler, if only because they had more time and more people available to kill. A good example of Soviet rewriting of history is that their official encyclopedia was in loose-leaf so articles on (e.g.) Lavrenti Beria could be replaced with more suitable articles (in his case, the Bering Strait).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We ought not to erect monuments to monsters in the first place. But murderous totalitarian regimes can do what they want. And when the people throw off such monsters, these edifices of their evil ought to come down as well.

    And then there is the rest of history which is far more complicated than the occasional mega-monsters such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, and Mao.

    For what it’s worth, Napoleon was a monster as well and it does the French no credit to memorialize him. But the monster that needs eradicating is the flood of candy-ass zealotry infesting the brains of those who demand their own Stalin-like ego be enlarged, for monuments to themselves (as prime Social Justice Warriors) to be erected (if only be de-erecting certain hated statues).

    My biggest disappointment isn’t with the mob. We’ll always have a thoughtless and dangerous mob gurgling underneath the pillars of civilization. No, my biggest disappointment is with otherwise decent people who make excuses for the mob instead of standing athwart their destructive ends.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I was having brunch today at the Original Pancake House and next to me sat a couple of old puffs; one of whom was wearing the following t-shirt:


      As I said to my wife, the true message of the shirt is “resist any and everyone who disagrees with me.”

      In the end, the guy who wore the t-shirt was simply a preening, pompous, pretentious prig who had a need to call attention to his sad-sack self.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Mr. Kung, the message may be a little long but, gosh darn it, somebody ought to.

        Virtue Shirt” /></p>

      <div class= Reply

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Pls make that t-shirt for me and I will wear it, even though I am an old fart.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I’ll see what I can do. I’ll have to shorten that up a bit because if you tuck in the shirt (and conservatives ought not to be slobs), you’d lose some of the writing.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Mr. Kung. Here’s an article about cheap and worthless virtue that is right up your alley: ‘Conservatives’ and Cheap Virtue

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              This writer gets it Brad.

              Phony conservatives abound. As you and I have discussed, there is little doubt that many, perhaps most, “conservative” pundits are simply in it for the dough.

              As to the recent outrage about Neo-Nazis, I find it somewhat humorous. Not because Nazis are good people, but because the modern “Neo-Nazi” is a joke. They are like the idiot kid in school who doesn’t know that someone put a sign on his back which says “Kick me.”

              If Adolf were around today he would bust a gut laughing at these idiots. He would never attach himself to a movement which had failed so miserably in the past. No, if he were around today, he would work through various leftist and governmental organizations to attain power.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Leaving aside the rally, which certainly had a heavy Nazi component and at least some Nazi rhetoric, one must also remember that many of these conservatives fail to see that the Antifa forces came to riot, and did, as they have done so many times in some many places already. Trump was right to blame left as well as right.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Right on, Timothy. When Trump is right, he’s right…despite the fact that Jay Caruso sums up my feelings very well in: Does Anybody Understand What These New Trumpers Think They’re Achieving?

                You all might not agree (Brother Brad has gotten somewhat used to being an iconoclast, but not a purist), but I think Jay Nordlinger, in a softly snarky post, finds a tantrum maestro analogy for Donald Trump. Much like me, he can find big truths in the small slices of life.

                It matters little if Trump (or the RINO Republicans, for that matter) actually do anything, as long as they verbally bash the right people and give us instant-feedback on our never-ending deep hurt feelings. Regarding at least the GOP, Brent Bozell believes there is a definite shelf-life expiration date for the GOP: The Slow Death of the Republican Party.

                It makes sense. It’s possible that Trumpian forces will displace the Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans of the party. But, again, the RINOs have served a useful purpose. (Read the article. I think Bozell gets it.) The RINOs, despite being regularly disparaged, are also regularly re-elected. Throw some red-meat-rhetoric at the yokels (as Trump did) and as long as their sense of grievance is stoked, that seems to be all that matters. We’re not a mob, of course, on the right but we are no less prone to trivializing politics.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Bozell may exaggerate a bit. Not about the wall, but I think most Republicans are willing to repeal Obamacare. Not enough of them, though, given their narrow control in the Senate. And, realistically, it would have to be replaced by something that hands out that “free” health care, but does a better job of it (and preferably reduces the level of government involvement in healthcare).

          • David Ray says:

            I want an Obama shirt to put on my halloween spooky skeleton. Unfortunately it’d start a riot, since liberals have no sense of humor.
            It’s a lot like when that rodeo clown got fired just for wearing an Obama mask during his gig (just like he wore other presidential masks before, but oh well. Screw him! He musta had it commin!!)

      • David Ray says:

        Yes, liberal bozos do love to advertise. I’d rank that shirt with the other crap like the Che & Obama shirts. Only thing more obnoxious are when they feel the need to expose their underware.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, there are t-shirts with conservative messages. I’ve seen ads for them, and even have a few myself.

          • David Ray says:

            I’m shocked! (I have seen the “Reagan” shirt, but clothing with any messages aren’t my cup of tea.)

            I do have a “You are not entitled to what I have earned” bumper sticker. Here in Dallas, it gets me compliments. Over in Jersey it got my truck keyed.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    The problem isn’t that people want to put up monuments to monsters such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. It’s that they don’t consider them monsters, but heroes, which is why they put up monuments to them.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      So true, Timothy. That’s part of the moral reversal of the Left. Dennis Prager frequently notes their moral confusion.

      I’ll grant you that, except for Jesus Christ, there has been no sinless person on this earth. The rest is a matter of things that go in the plus column and things that go in the minus column. Some things (such as the murder of 40 million) weigh down Mao (which, as Dave Barry might say, is not a bad name for a rock group) into the role of a monster and worthy of having every statue toppled.

      But I’m sure he loved his cat, if he had one, just as Hitler probably loved his dogs. For 95% of the rest of us, we are morally ambiguous. That is the truth. But the other truth is that human nature (especially the ego) is easily self-bamboozled. Few want to think unwell of themselves thus (via projection) the sins are usually placed on The Other and they are usually ramped up.

      And this we see happening in an atheistic culture unable to deal with the nitty-gritty reality that all humans are flawed and that we have a propensity to ignore our own flaws and inflate those of others. Humility is not something taught by the atheistic/materialist left. Quite the opposite. Much like Islam, it is a totalitarian ideology. Its goal is to be supreme in all things, despite the dishonest lip-service given to “diversity.”

      I’m certainly no friend of the Confederate generals. Clearly slavery should have been recognized by the South as more than a “lifestyle choice” and as something in opposition to the founding principles of the country, let alone the eternal principles of human dignity, rights, and freedom.

      A Confederate general I would be glad to make a statue for would be the one who uttered similar words and worked for the peaceful eradication of slavery instead of banging the drums of war. I’m not offhand aware of one. But as for the others, leave their statues be. Although slavery was the prime issue behind the Civil War, all hands were dirty to some extent. And to some extent, men being men, they were thrust into the battle with a sense of reflexive duty, honor, and protecting one’s homeland. Life is complicated. Overturning statues for all but the true monsters of the world is for simple-minded dolts and destructive political zealots (and PC weenies and collaborators, of course).

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, John McCown (a Confederate Major General) got into trouble for referring to the Confederacy as a cotton aristocracy (I don’t recall the exact words). Most Southerners, having grown up with chattel slavery, accepted it as normal — but how they treated their slaves varied. Davis was very generous toward them, and so was Jackson (who taught slaves the Bible, which came very close to violating the law and may even have crossed it).

        Pat Cleburne (the best division commander in the Army of Tennessee) proposed freeing the slaves and then using them as soldiers. A number of other generals in the army agreed with him, but the higher authorities didn’t, and he was never promoted even though several openings came up the following summer of 1864 (and the first of the alternatives, A. P. Stewart, was grossly junior to him, though also a good choice). I once made a photocopy of his proposal from a biography that I read at Purdue (and later got a copy of myself).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        On Dec. 27, 1856, Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife: “Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country … I think, however, a greater evil to the white than to the black race. … The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small part of the human race, and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

        I would have to look into the question more deeply, but the vast majority, perhaps all, of the slaves under Lee’s control belonged to his wife, who inherited them from her father’s estate. (Washington had been in a similar situation.) Apparently, it was her father’s wish to have the slaves freed after his death. There is some question as to exactly when, but the documents say within five years. Lee manumitted the slaves accordingly in 1862 or early 1963.

        As to Lee’s choice to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, an argument can be made that he should have fought for each side. It is simple to say that Lee should have fought for the Union, but as I continually point out, life is complicated.

        I believe a clear case could be made that Communism and the Soviet Union were equally evil as the institution of slavery, certainly in the number of lives taken extra-judicially, but the USA allied itself with the Soviet Union to fight Nazi Germany.

        In life, choices must be made and lived with. There is no perfection involved.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          A lot of Southerners were firm backers of slavery (such as John Calhoun), but many saw it was something that had to go some time in the future. But they never did anything to make that happen, or to ameliorate the lot of the slaves. Apparently John C. Breckinridge, the Southern rights candidate in 1860 (whose running mate was Joseph Lane of Oregon, which is why that state and California featured tight 3-way races), was actually anti-slavery.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          As we replay the Civil War, it’s worth asking how things are going in the culture wars. They’ve fired on Fort Sumter. They’ve invaded Pennsylvania. Who is defending Little Round Top?

          In our culture wars, we are in the role of the more agrarian South. We can’t match the resources of the Left. They have the presses, the entertainment industry, and government schools. We have a few people blogging away and an occasional speech by a Republican (but rarely votes leading to consequences).

          Things are so bad, we’re left squinting real hard and trying to find Patrick Henry in Donald Trump. Our ass is getting kicked.

          Still, in some respects, the Left has been so successful emasculating men and creating a country of loafers, it’s no bet that they control their own destiny.

          Historically, to understand an American traditionalist was to understand someone who worked on a farm or was otherwise familiar with small-town life. Today, to understand people is to play their video games.

          I had a chat with a landlord the other day. He was talking about a certain set of tenants, some of whom I was familiar with. He said they were no trouble. Paid their rent on time. And he never had to call the cops. But this landlord a couple years ago created a nice rockery of Japanese maples and other plantings. It was nice. And he said that the kids never bothered to water it once. Much of it has died. He said that if it’s not a video game, it’s just ignored.

          To understand today’s culture you have to understand that people are living life inside their phones and their video games. No one has much of an idea of what that means for the future of our country. Someone living on a farm who works with crops and animals has first-hand knowledge of the way life works and what it takes to make life work. Hifalutin theories by queer-boys in the coffee shops are of no use. There’s something about the real-life of a farm or a small town that is incompatible with baloney.

          Given that virtual reality of various kinds is now the real reality for many people, it’s easy to believe that you can lie to them quite easily because they have no point of reference for the real. I think as long as the phones remain cheap and internet access is free or cheap, you’ll never see a revolution from the these generations. They might, at best, summon a thought such as “Give me wifi or give me something else.”

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Well, there are still factories that employ people. Of course, I have no idea how many are young, but there must be some who live something approaching what we would consider normal lives. Not as many as there should be, I’m sure, but a fair number even so.

          • pst4usa says:

            The only “good” news, of sorts Brad in this post as well as the article about the slow death of the Republican Party, is that it is a race to complete suicide by both the major parties. Kind of like watching gang green climb up both your legs, the suspense, as they say, is not the only thing killing you.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Pat, I’m sure the consultants and market researchers know a lot more about where the Republican Party is going than I do. They probably have a much better handle on what people want…and how to cynically exploit what I increasing view as an unwise and not particularly serious electorate.

              A betting man would bet that we are headed for de facto one-party rule. One could make the case that we already have that. All the bluff-and-bluster of Twitter, Facebook, and habitual bitching around the water cooler is The Drama part of it. That satisfies the short-term emotion of those who have made politics (right or left) into a sort of identity.

              But while the electorate engages in the kabuki theatre of The Daily Drama, the parties inch more and more toward a totalitarian state, and one that increasing ignores the Constitution or any philosophy that puts limits on The Ruling Class.

              Some people say they voted for Trump because he was going to blow all that up. Last time I looked, most of his MAGA fellows have left the administration. And all that remains are basically Democrats. The swamp isn’t getting drained although Trump works in regards to venting anger in The Daily Drama.

              We are being rope-a-doped, coming and going, and by both parties. Evil walks the land. There is a vast sickness out there wherein people are so dissatisfied with their own lives that they want to destroy something. Many want to destroy this country.

              I’ve lost faith in the people of America to reform themselves. I think our future is a further Balkanization. I can foresee various radical political parties and movements gaining ground. As for the GOP itself, few would miss it if it died tomorrow.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Trump’s cabinet remains good, though the White House now is mostly full of people with liberal Democratic backgrounds. But even there we still have Kellyanne Conway, so it’s not completely hopeless yet.

              • Steve Lancaster says:

                We have made up names for those in the two parties that speak the party line but don’t do the work–RINO republican in name only and DINO democrat in name only, or we just call them the establishment.

                I’m tired of these labels. They are an insult to a magnificent beast of the African savannah. The Rhino defends his turf and is inclined to leave others alone if left alone. This could even be said of the dinosaur(Dino).

                I think we should rename this political group jellyfish. They have the ability to sting and even kill, they float along with the current grabbing food whenever it comes in reach. Their tentacles reach far beyond their bodies for the weak and helpless. But, they have no spine, and out of the water, exposed to light they die.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Interesting. Those who refuse to live up to their promises out of cowardice are called jellyfish, so I can see the parallel here.

  4. pst4usa says:

    Brad you must stop being such a Polly-Anna. Put away those rose colored glasses, I mean I have seen some sugar coating in my day but your’s is just over the top. I can’t say I disagree with a word of your post, but I will reinforce that we are already under one party rule.
    Steve I love the jellyfish analogy.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Pat, I’d love someone to give a realistic optimistic viewpoint. Not sure that’s doable. The best we can do is adapt, ratchet leftward, and make normal the vision of man as a cog in the social-justice machine of the for-your-own-good welfare state.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think we should rename this political group jellyfish.

    I love that label, Steve, and the reasons you gave for it.

    Here’s the situation we face: It is becoming nearly impossible to implement reform and restraint in government via the ballot box. The beast of Big Government becomes an end in itself. And people begin to identify with government itself (creepy in the best of times). Reagan warned about this when he said that we are a people who have a government, and not the other way around.

    The solution to Islam in Europe is violence. The solution to Big Government likely is no different. I’m not advocating that because, as Jefferson noted,

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    The problem is, we’re all frogs in a pot of slowly-heating water. It is inconceivable that a people who increasingly adapt to the evil of socialism will suddenly throw it off. It is more likely that invasion from without or violent revolution from within (or just the dissolution of the United States into several regional countries) will be the only forces that can break this demonic bond.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Revolution can probably only work if the great mass of people realize that we are frogs in a slowly boiling pot, and decide to do something about it. Much the same thing is true about breaking up into multiple countries. (Actually, about 3 would probably do it — one in the northeast, one on the Pacific coast, and the rest of the country, where sanity would have a chance to prevail.)

      • pst4usa says:

        Maybe we could cede Seattle to Canada and leave the rest of Washington with the middle of the country Timothy. They will need sea ports on the Pacific, as well as those of Texas and the south.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          That’s fine with me. I wouldn’t mind including the inland portions of Oregon and California, for that matter, and upstate New York. If we could find a way to trade them for Chicago, it would be really nice.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I figure a natural country would be British Columbia, Western Washington, and Western Oregon. We’d call it Libtardia.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            But with coastal California forming its own nation (no doubt in combination with Hawaii as the Police State of Diversia), the US would have no mainland Pacific port to link to Alaska.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              No prob. The “Peaceful,” diverse, touchy-feely Kingdom of California (with the Browns as hereditary kings) would invade Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming in order to secure its water.

              Meanwhile, that old “54-40 or fight” thing will be moot as British Columbia annexes Washington and Oregon (Oregon being easy pickings because most of the population euthanized themselves to “save the planet”).

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I don’t see Nevada et al as much of a water source for California, unless they want to drink up the Great Salt Lake. I doubt even they would find it potable. That ending for Oregon sounds believable, though only for the Portland area and some towns in the Willamette Valley.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                One wonders, Timothy, if these words of Lincoln, from his second inaugural address, are applicable today:

                With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

                I confess, other than losing many lovely apricot orchards, I could care less if earlier disaster predictions (before global warming, or even global cooling) were to take place and California collapsed into the sea.

                I’m sure the feeling is mutual. There is lest affinity between America-hating Utopianists and traditional Americans than there was between the North and the South who somehow found common-cause in making war against their King.

                The problem stems (for the moment) from these dis-union feelings not applying to geographical boundaries. There are red-state areas and red-Commie areas within the individual states.

                What we can say for sure is that the idea of individual thought, of disagreeing honorably with whatever majority opinion is out there, is almost dead. It’s dead within major corporations. The Supreme Court, as an article at NRO recently mentioned, has generally upheld the First Amendment. But the power of the Left isn’t just in legal coercion. It’s getting people to self-censor. And people have become quite used to doing that.

                I’ve always stated that the problem with the Left isn’t that they want clean water, clean air, and people to be nice to each other. It’s that the heavy and demonic indoctrination given to people leaves these same people no principled way to say “No” to the Commissars. The man who will stand on principle is being replaced by the wet-noodle who will blow with the wind.

                The Wicker Man is the best analogy I can think of for what our society is turning into. Everyone has shit-eating grins on their faces professing harmlessness. But the reality is the fangs that are hidden just underneath and that will come instantly into play the moment you even mildly upset The Golden Children.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, I can see Edward Woodward’s virgin character as representing social conservatism, and the pagan islanders as modern leftists. But they only resort to human sacrifice in dire circumstances (such as a poor harvest), and act without malice toward Woodward. When he points out that he will die a martyr and be rewarded in the afterlife, Christopher Lee’s character is happy for him, though he presumably doesn’t believe in that afterlife himself.

  6. David Ray says:

    Sounds like, uh, um, that fool Stone yammers almost as bad as George Soros.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *