Thursday, August 28, 2014

World's Weirdest Film Critic

Stomp And Stammer is a great music magazine.


 Really, a really good music magazine.

But they also do movie reviews.

And they have the world's weirdest movie critic, David T. Lindsay, who sees every movie ever made as an example of his weird political views.

For instance, here is the opening line of his review of teen movie The Giver:

The Giver [PG-13]: The dazed stupor of the hysterical do-gooders who foster racism while calling for censorship disguised as fair play find the fruits of their labor realized in director Phillip Noyce’s adaptation of Lois Lowry’s 1993 children’s classic, The Giver.

Um. . . what???

Owing a huge debt to both Ayn Rand’s Anthem and Huxley’s Brave New World, there have been other dystopian films such as Equilibrium and Harrison Bergeron that show a not-too-distant future where emotion has been eradicated in the attempt to guarantee there being no losers, that no one achieves popularity more so than anyone else so that everyone measures up to a sameness – no better off than anyone else.

It doesn’t sound like the not-too-distant future. It sounds like last week. Especially when you take into account that for complete obedience, one of the first distractions eliminated is music! Shades of Georgia Public Broadcasting!

Um. . . yeah. . . Georgia Public Broadcasting doesn't play a whole lot of music, but there are tons of other stations that do. No one's eliminating music. Your magazine has a weekly radio show on WMLB that is all about music.

I remember years ago when an American in Manila was caught in the act of vandalizing cars. Convicted, he was sentenced to bamboo caning, which caused an American outcry that this was barbaric! Nope – true barbarism was his failure to respect private property! There are no human rights without property rights.

Okay, that fucking came out of nowhere. What the fuck does this have to do with the movie? Hell if I know! (Also, it was Singapore, not the Philippines)
Well, I'm sure he'll get back to critiquing the movie in the next paragraph.

Again, for those with the “progressive” brain aneurysm: there are no human rights without property rights!
What does it benefit an individual to be designated as the beneficiary of “human rights” if his property can be seized by Imminent Domain? Or his bank account confiscated and redistributed? If his home is burned to the ground? His business looted – robbed for cigars or gold? If allowed unchallenged, what’s to keep the looter satisfied with mere property? What if he returns to demand your life? The issue in the real world is that some are permitted, out of a sense of injustice or envy, to sacrifice others.
So you can imagine what the world's weirdest film critic would have to say about Dinesh D'Souza's latest lie-turd:

America: Imagine the World Without Her [PG-13]: Payback is a bitch for the lunatic fringe who blame America for a conquest ethic that has existed since the dawn of man in this documentary from the man who exposed 2016: Obama's America. The American left, or their latest identification as "progressives"(Ooh-la-la!), would blame George W. Bush for the crucifixion, the Black Plague, Katrina and the Challenger explosion if it weren't for guys like Dinesh D’Souza to call their bluff.

If the most "payback" they can muster is a shitty movie that no one but them is going to see, I think we'll be just fine.

Also, it's interesting how you lump Katrina in there with all those things that Bush couldn't possibly be blamed for. I mean, obviously Hurricane Katrina wasn't caused by Dubya, but it's more than fair to blame him for his administration's piss-poor response to the tragedy.

  As the shining beacon of ALL liberty, whose constitution has been used as the basis for ALL freedom-seeking people everywhere on this planet, the United States has nonetheless spawned ravenous deniers like Saul Alinsky and Howard Zinn who have perpetuated the myth that the nation was built on slave labor on stolen Indian and Mexican land.

Um. . . okay. . . let's go ahead and stipulate that the US Constitution is pretty great. How does that negate the existence of slavery? And no matter how neato a country we built on this land, that doesn't change the fact that we stole it from the people who were already living here.

D’Souza responds by pointing out that Christopher Columbus NEVER stepped foot on American soil since his landing was in 1492 and America was established in 1776!

How the fuck is that a response? That's like saying "Joe's not a wife-beater. They weren't married yet when he beat Susan up."

I really don't get what the point of that is even supposed to be. Columbus may have done some horrible things, but he did them before the Western Hemisphere was called "America?" So therefore, the US is immune from criticism over atrocities like slavery? You know, come to think of it, that does pretty much sound like D'Souza logic.

Furthermore, every piece of land claimed by Europeans was previously stolen by Indian tribes from lesser tribes, and since Mexico NEVER owned California or New Mexico but inherited from the Spaniards when they ran them out of Mexico, they can't claim any territorial rights to the United States! 

Did various Native American tribes steal land from other tribes? I don't know. Maybe. Let's say they did. I guess that totally justifies the Trail of Tears!
And, yes, there was no Nation of Mexico before Spain was ejected from the Americas, but how is that relevant? The same peoples who were living in Texas, California, etc before the Mexican Revolution were still there after. If they went from being called Aztecs to being citizens of Nueva Espana to being called Mexicans, that really doesn't justify running them off their land at gunpoint.

And now. . .
The most insane and offensive line of the piece:

And, since individual rights are the product of America's Declaration of Independence, there can be no claim to “rights” of any sort by the tribal Indians! 

So, up until 1776, throughout all of human history until 1776 no persons had any rights anywhere in the world. There was no such thing as human rights until Thomas Jefferson wrote the finest piece of public relations ever published. The Declaration of Independence which, by the way, is not a legally binding document, but an open letter to the crown heads of Europe convincing them not to intervene on the side of Britain, states clearly that it is enumerating rights which already exist, not creating new ones.

Also, why would these rights apply to white folks but not Indians? At the very least, the Indians' human rights should have been respected post-1776 (by your logic).

You shall have rights when I say you shall have rights!

The left NEVER admit they are wrong about anything, so occasionally D’Sousa has to rub their noses in the facts. It is not enough to expose their sedition without tying the leaders of the Democrat Party to the twisted fabricated guilt that’s been taught in public schools from textbooks designed to blame America.

Sedition? Pointing out things that America has done wrong is sedition?


P.S. If you are not fortunate enough to live in the Atlanta area, you probably don't know about WMLB, the greatest radio station in the world. (Yes, I have sampled every radio station in the world)

Check 'em out here: you can listen to live-streaming audio.