There is an unbridgeable moral chasm separating the rulers from their subjects, Stephen Karganovic writes.
No, thankfully the malady has not yet overtaken the entirety of the West, but it certainly has seized hold of the element within it that sets the tone and shapes minds. The precise matter that currently exercises the establishment is not motherhood so much literally as symbolically, insofar as the powers that be dismiss with undisguised contempt the inviolability of motherhood’s most precious issue, innocent children. That is close enough.
The opinion dictators’ unhinged reaction to the newly released film “Sound of Freedom” highlights a seeming paradox. It is that in the presumed epicentre of global civilisation and humanistic values, loathing for and condemnation of the kidnapping and enslavement of children is shown to be neither automatic nor unanimous. There is nothing paradoxical about it, however. The inner logic this follows is impeccable. It may only be a matter of time, perhaps not even too long, before child rapists are extolled and motherhood, cherry pie, and all the other emblems of traditional purity shall be openly pilloried and their upholders mercilessly excoriated, possibly even persecuted.
Although not a Hollywood production (soon after release, the notorious den of corruption unequivocally disowned the film and one readily suspects the reasons why) and notwithstanding malicious denigration in the controlled media, “Sound of Freedom” has played in packed theatres across the U.S. Its earnings thus far have exceeded cost of production by over ten-fold, while concurrently released Hollywood blockbusters are failing miserably at the box office. It was a remarkable achievement, in particular because word of mouth publicity apparently was enough to overcome every conceivable obstacle erected by the enraged establishment.
Commercial success data however are a very minor detail. Far more significant is that the temporarily stunned establishment, itself deeply involved in every known form of amorality, has managed to turn the exposé of a phenomenon that should have been universally repugnant into a controversial issue. By slyly introducing ambivalence into the absoluteness of the distinction between good from evil, it has registered a modest success of its own. The popularity and massive viewership of the “Sound of Freedom” against all odds is, of course, comforting evidence that the vast majority of Americans remain normal and decent people. The critical question, however, is whether in the long run the film’s undeniable triumph, if judged merely by movie industry metrics, will have a substantive impact beyond that? In other words, will it leave a mark on public policy, or will it be no more than a flash in the pan?
Regrettably, there is no indication that ultimately the film will be anything more than a flash in the pan.
True, paid establishment shills posing as film critics, many of them with a personal background of involvement in paedophilia and therefore in clear conflict of interest, have been trashing the “Sound of Freedom” relentlessly for weeks since its release without achieving for their trouble any visible box office results.
It is true also that by massively flocking to the movie theatres to see a film so strongly frowned upon by their overlords, to use a metaphor from bygone days, the plebes have voted with their feet. That is a method of voting that Dominion vote counting machines are unable to influence or reverse.
Yet on the policy level the public referendum on child trafficking in movie theatres has had no resonance in the ranks of the governing class or among any of their courtiers and minions. As recently as two or three decades ago politicians and other public figures would have been competing to garner political brownie points by pretending to identify with the social outrage. They would be echoing popular sentiment and promising effective legislation and other palliative measures to deal with the scandal. This time around however nothing of the sort is taking place. Politicians, religious and cultural leaders, and public figures of most diverse profiles from whom a reaction should naturally be expected, have remained totally and conspicuously silent regarding a matter of the highest public concern and an outrage of extraordinary magnitude.
What does that tell us about the condition of the society where this is possible?
It tells us at least two things. First, that there is an unbridgeable moral chasm separating the rulers from their subjects. Pence’s honest admission to Tucker Carlson that the long list of domestic issues the latter ticked off is “not my concern,” presumably because of their insignificance compared to the “internationalist obligation” of sustaining Zelensky’s regime, is emblematic of the ruling elite’s alienated mindset. (In Europe, an identical sentiment, almost verbatim, was expressed by Germany’s stupid foreign minister.) The nomenklatura no longer feel the need to even feign commonality of values with the masses they deceitfully rule.
As a result, there has been no acknowledgement from the “servants of the people” class of the child trafficking and enslavement pandemic. No legislative or police strategies to deal with it are being publicly contemplated nor do the rulers perceive a need to present an action plan to mollify the incensed masses, who are viewed from on high as marginal, no more than a minor nuisance. The human trafficking scandal may greatly bother Joe So-and-So out on the street, but as insider Pence helpfully explained it is not their concern. Confidently and patiently, they are waiting for the sordid revelations to blow over. Meanwhile, in their public opinion modelling laboratories, as this is written distractions are being devised to memory hole them and then, as quickly as practicable, to change the subject.
The other thing this tells us about the ruling elite is that what has long been suspected of their utter degeneracy most likely is true. The abuse depicted in “Sound of Freedom” is not confined to the streets and alleys of large metropolitan centres or the jungles of Columbia. It is endemic to the lifestyle of powerful people, and at all levels. Willing participation in depravity is often the entry ticket for joining the ranks of the Western power elite. The credible revelations of Dutch banker Ronald Bernard, who opted out when as a condition for further advancement he was asked to participate in child blood sacrifice (12:48 to 14:05), speak for themselves and are borne out by a mass of other similar testimonials (and here). Child trafficking and exploitation, including blood sacrifice, reaches into the highest levels of authority, both secular and religious. They are the ultimate consumers of the horrors depicted in the “Sound of Freedom.” The expectation that those circles would do anything about it other than cover it up is therefore naïve and unrealistic.
The euphemistic white-washing in public discourse of this particularly heinous variety of perversion, by relabelling its criminal protagonists innocuous “minor attracted adults,” gives the game away. There is an ongoing systematic effort to normalise the abhorrent and to promote it as a regular and accepted feature of everyday life. Without backing from within the apparatus of power, which in reality is the network of psychopaths who hold Western societies in their iron grip, aggressively reshaping it in their own corrupt likeness and image, this normalisation of evil could not take place.
Unless a thoroughgoing perestroika is carried out in the West and the psychopaths infesting all spheres of public life and social influence are locked up and the keys are forever thrown away, prisons and asylums will soon be filled with decent people, conscientious whistle-blowers and moral heroes such as the makers of the “Sound of freedom.”