Amazon

New Horror Film The Green Inferno Skewers Political Correctness and Multiculturalism



Eli Roth’s fourth film, The Green Inferno (following Cabin Fever, Hostel and Hostel: Part 2) is an homage to classic (well, classic to some) Italian cannibal films such as Man from Deep River, Jungle Holocaust, Eaten Alive, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals, Cannibal Ferox and, especially Cannibal Holocaust; yes I’ve seen them all.  In the case of the last one, the title for Roth’s film was inspired directly by it, which I will get to momentarily.  In addition to being an homage, Roth's film is also a satire, albeit a fairly mean spirited one, of leftist, liberal and progressive college activists.

For those unaware the cannibal film sub-genre was spawned in Italy in the early 1970s and exhausted itself out in the early 80s.  The crowning achievement of the genre is the aforementioned Cannibal Holocaust, whose one distinguishing feature from other cannibal films is that it is a precursor to The Blair Witch Project and other “found footage" horror films.  In fact the documentary being watched within Cannibal Holocaust is called The Green Inferno and follows a team of documentary filmmakers into the jungles of the amazon.  The team proceed to torture the natives, who, in turn torture them back.  All of this is caught on camera and, when shown to the TV crew and, of course the audience, the question is raised: "who are the real cannibals?"  Of course, in Roth's film, the answer is simple; "The cannibals are the cannibals."  This has liberals PISSED.

Regerro Deodato’s film along with the other cannibal films is full of violence of every imaginable sort that could not be shown in your average R rated horror film – from the standard decapitations and amputations to more extreme fare like castrations, rape and real animal killing.

It’s 2015 and Roth’s film has no animal killing, but it has plenty of gore.  It also includes what might be the final frontier of horror film depravity; female genital mutilation.  To be fair America hater Lars Von Trier included this in his film Antichrist from 2009, but Roth is the first to put in a straight ahead horror film.

The basic plot of the movie is that Justine (played by Roth’s super hot wife and Chilean model Lorenzo Izzo) decides to join a group of activists after witnessing a lecture on female genital mutilation in her world studies class and getting manipulated by the sleazy leftist activist Alejandro (Ariel Levy).  Their activist trip involves going into a Peruvian jungle and using cell phones and social media to shame land contractors, who employed the help of a gun toting militia, out of bulldozing land of an indigenous Peruvian tribe.  When Justine gets a gun pointed at her head and activist leader Alejandro is ready to sacrifice her for his cause, she starts to get wind of the lengths leftists will go to get their point across.

However, the shaming attempt allegedly works and, after their so called victory – which is revealed to just be a p.r. stunt – the activists crash land into the Peruvian jungle and are tortured and eaten alive by the very people they allegedly came to protect.

Enter liberal outrage.

Roth immediately establishes his disdain for leftist college activist types in the film’s opening scene when the main character is woken up to hunger strikers protesting to increase the wages of janitors.  The sentiment is continued further when Kira (singer Sky Ferriera), best friend of Justine exclaims, “activism is so fucking gay”, while also throwing in some remarks about the white Jewish elitist guilt to the horrified stare of a passerby.  She turns, pulls out her Star of David pendant and says, “Uh, I can say that!”  I laughed wholeheartedly at that.  Is Eli Roth really taking a swipe at liberal Jews?  I can only hope!

In fact, I’ll go so far as to draw a direct parallel with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict;  young, naive activists support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, thinking they’re helping the “poor Palestinians” in spite the fact that Israel was always just protecting itself against rockets fired by a group of people who they’ve conceded land to in every war they've won.  Naive activists fail to realize that the people they allegedly want to protect are governed by the savages known as Hamas, who couldn't care less about their cause and are known for stringing gay people on ropes and killing women when they think they've committed adultery.  Let us not forget that they use women and children as shields just to make Israel look bad in case they retaliate against rocket fire.

I can only speculate if Roth had any message in mind beyond making fun of social justice warriors.  However, it would be nice if the same guy who played the Bear Jew in Quinten Tarantino’s otherwise preposterous Inglorious Basterds, beating the brains out of Nazi soldier with a baseball bat, might have a cautionary, pro-West message in mind.  Maybe he was thinking of naive journalists who go to Muslim countries only to be kidnapped and beheaded.  Whatever parallel can be drawn, it’s clear the movie doesn’t seem to have a pro-multicultural message.  Hell, the protagonist is saved by the very “imperialist” militia she had gone to protest against.
 
Anyway, back in the jungle the natives are portrayed as primitive savages and waste no time in cooking up and eating the fattest member of their crew, Jonah (Aaron Burns) (did Eli Roth name this character Jonah because he's fat?)  People who hate the film’s message will try and say that the film lacks suspense, pacing, atmosphere, and likeable characters.  They’re just looking for excuses to hate it.  The Peruvian jungle locale looks gorgeous and we immediately sympathize with Justine the second she finds out that she was a pawn in the “activist” Alejandro’s twisted plot.

On top of that the movie has lots of excitement and gore; branch going through someone’s face, head getting chopped off by a propeller, live body flaying, someone being eaten alive by ants, freshly skinned heads on poles and a throat being slit.  The mood is lightened slightly with some juvenile humor in the form of some explosive diarrhea and a “Scooby Doo” style escape plot involving putting marijuana in the cannibals’ food.

When leftists actually admit that the movie is good, as in suspenseful and well made, they complain about how it's xenophobic and that attacks on social justice warriors are shallow at best.  But that’s the point!  Social justice warriors ARE shallow, taking on socio-political causes with almost no knowledge of the history behind any of them.

Some critics feel the film’s conclusion makes no sense; that Justine, the only survivor, goes on to lie about her experience with the cannibals to her father, a member of the U.N.  I don't feel this is the case at all.  I feel this is exactly what people on the left do; make excuses, rationalize or flat out lie about how certain cultures just aren't compatible with Western values.  Eli Roth isn't afraid to point this out.

Why Are Leftists So Afraid of Being Wrong?



There are essentially three ways to tap out of an argument.  There’s the polite and honest way, where you say, “okay, I can’t argue against that point because I don’t know enough and you may very well be right.”  There’s the “I’m too scared of being wrong or too lazy to google, click on the link you shared or watch your video, so I’m just going to question and discredit your source no matter how credible it is.”  A perfect example of this is when I show leftists this link to this Huffington Post article which says feminists have proven that gender based pay discrimination doesn’t exist and, all of a sudden, one of their go to sources for propaganda just doesn’t seem as appealing anymore.  The third way is the classic name-calling; “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “Islamophobic” or just plain nutty tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.  

Of course, I can only theorize why people are so arrogant that they refuse to let themselves be wrong in any argument.  My guess is that either they’re afraid their entire world view as constructed by the Hollywood liberal elite, the print media and the entertainment media at large will come crashing down and they will be forced to think about things critically or they’re afraid of having their fragile egos bruised.  And let’s face it: intellectual discourse is completely dead at universities and other leftist circles.  I find it ironic that liberals use the appeal to intellect as a way to discredit any conservative thought when their ideas tend to come from left-skewed "comedians" like Jon Stewart who base their entire act on taking quotes out of context, from reductive memes posted on Facebook or from brief video clips of Bernie Sanders angrily shouting rhetoric about how Alan Greenspan "doesn't get it.”

Whatever the case may be, the left is pretty much wrong about everything, except for maybe religion.  I must admit my own personal bias in writing this piece; I’m a secular, possibly atheist or agnostic Jew whose parents come from the former Soviet Union, so religion isn’t that important to me in my life.  At the same time, since Judaism (or for that matter any other religion) wasn’t forced upon me, I never developed the harsh Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins allergic reaction to anything even hinting that there might be some higher power.  I just don’t care that much and, to be honest, my true religion is collecting records, watching weird movies and seeing live bands play among a bunch of other cultural and artistic pursuits.

As far as the topic of gay marriage goes, rather than worrying about whether gay marriage should or shouldn’t be considered a “right”, I feel we should keep the government out of marriage altogether.  I understand that, if straight couples receive the tax benefits of a marriage or some form of partnership, gays should have that right as well, but that does bring into question whether it can then be allowed for me to marry a buddy of mine for the sole purpose of tax write offs.  Do we have to actually engage in some sort of public displays of affection to prove we are in fact a couple and not just two dudes screwing the government?  

Plus there’s the religious freedom angle; I still feel it’s wrong and evil to bankrupt a business for not making a “gay cake” and I feel, in the future, we are going to see gay couples demanding churches perform ceremonies that go against that church's beliefs and demanding that pastors and preachers not preach against homosexual unions under the guise of “hate speech.”

But I digress.  The point I was making is that “liberals” (I use the ironic quotes because self-identifying liberals are anything but) are pretty much wrong about everything.  Among the things they are wrong about include: 

1.    Their blind, devoted support of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; when asked who will pay for all of this free stuff, they say the corporations who need to pay their fair share.   When asked what a “fair share” is, they can’t list any specific number, but they’re sure it needs to be a very high percent.  All they know is that some people are very poor and some are very rich, and savior Bernie Sanders will change all of that.  That’s called socialism, that’s what they have in European countries and it’s bankrupting them, leading to the meltdown in Greece.  Plus it discourages competition, which is what gave all of these leftists all of the wonderful technology on which they can go online to post ridiculous pro-Bernie Sanders memes.  These contradictions are lost on the left; all they know is “free stuff, free stuff!”

2.    Gender wage gap discrimination; liberals have taken the statistic that women make seventy-seven cents for every man’s dollar at face value and use it as one of their many alleged “facts” to prove there is some sort of war against women going on.  They neglect every other factor; women tend to go into less high paying fields in college, they’d rather go to their kids’ recitals than work overtime and they tend to work less high risk or high stress jobs.  So, yes, they technically as a whole make less, but it has nothing to do with genitalia and has everything to do with personal choices.  And, let’s face it: when an article which says all of that is printed in the Huffington Post, it's time to retire this tired argument.

3.    The Black Lives Matter movement; this movement isn’t so much about saying that black lives and all lives matter so much as it is about saying that police lives and white people’s lives don’t.  I’ve written this article to outline the ridiculousness of the movement, but, the bottom line is that they show zero outrage about the mass amount of violent crimes committed by members of the black community to other members and would rather focus on isolated incidents of police shooting black men who, though unarmed, were committing crimes and had questionable eyewitness testimony.

4.    Islam; in the minds of the left, of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, only 1% (which is still a lot of Muslims!) causes acts of terror and, well that’s it.  The rest are just a bunch of innocent people living their lives and need to be left alone.  Yet overwhelming evidence indicates that many more Muslims tacitly approve to downright support acts of terror.  Furthermore Islamic countries are oppressive to gays, women and anyone who isn’t Muslim, drawing their “prophet” will get you killed and that their overall way of life is antithetical to anything resembling a democracy.  Oh and many are inbred, which further affects their ability to reason. Yet, the left (with the exception of Bill Maher) fiercely, arrogantly and ignorantly holds onto the concept of a thing called “Islamophobia." In their minds Muslims are discriminated against as if they are a race or ethnic minority, making criticizing the religion impossible without liberal buffoons like Ben Affleck calling you a racist.  Americans are seeing the light by supporting comments made by Ben Carson, but who knows how much more death and violence it will take to wake up the rest of western civilization?

5. Abortion; to the pro-choice left, a baby is just a hunk meat that grows in you and can be ejected at any time.  To a pro-life person, abortion is always wrong.  I'm somewhere in the middle.  If a girl gets raped and doesn't want to go through a pregnancy, then terminate as early as possible.  If she made a foolish mistake, I don't see any reason in dragging the matter out any further unless she absolutely decides to bring the baby term, since single mothers seem to be all the rage.  But, this recent push on the left to support Planned Parenthood in spite videos exposing their disgusting butchery and the pro-choice left's attitude that abortion is somehow cool and liberating even as far as the third trimester is nothing short of supporting murder.  Let's not also forget that, by anybody's definition, Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist who thought abortion was a good way to keep the black population down.  I used to think "her body, her choice" and that's fine, but we have to understand the differences between terminating early and terminating whenever.  The left sees no difference in any of this.  Also, why not just wrap it up or use the pill or overnight plan b?

I could make a whole list of things that leftists are wrong about, but the fact remains; they can’t debate!  I debated a feminist that the term “mansplaining” is just meaningless nonsense invented by misandrist feminists and, rather than refuting my claim, all she could say was that I "mainsplained" mansplaining and proceeded to talk about fedoras.  I debated a leftist woman about the totalitarianism of Islam and all she could say was that I had anger issues and that ironically I “put her in her place.”  They can’t do it!  You present facts that can be found in mainstream, even leftist media sources and they are so afraid of their egos being bruised, that they will call you names or endlessly refute sources without actually checking them.  My question is, “how did we get this way?  Why did this generation of the left become so highly against intellectual thought and questioning their beliefs?”  

I used to be on the left and all of my arguments led to dead ends, resulting in my getting angry and calling people names.  Then I learned to listen, think and actually learn about the world around me.  I have a feeling the United States is going to be in a whole heap of trouble before young people have a mass insurrection at universities and begin to follow suit.  Then again, I do like free stuff.

European Holocaust Guilt Will be Its Demise

http://www.independent.co.uk/
If you aren't torn by the photos and video of the refugees coming out of the Middle East then you might not have a soul. The Civil War in Syria has caused turmoil across the world. The region has devolved into a free for all of beheading and other grotesque barbarism to which General Petraeus described as a "Geopolitical Chernobyl". One could argue that it is going through its own dark ages.

Europe has done nothing in the face of a yearlong persecution of Christians throughout Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and many other countries. The posture has been one of ambivalence. They also were more than happy to close their eyes when boats with migrants would capsize off their coasts.

Now the rooster has come to roost. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of migrants are coming to Europe's door looking for a stable country to dwell in. These are not Westerners with western values. These are people who have never known freedom. Unfortunately for Europe, it does a poor job at assimilating cultures. Europe is no big melting pot. Europe has a thousand years of reactionary policy. The crusades were a reaction to the Moor invasion.

Europe has decided to take the refugees from the Middle East; Mostly as a reaction to Holocaust Guilt. 70 years later, they are trying to cleanse their souls of a demon that they cannot exercise. The refugee crisis is because of Europe's pursuit of peace and nonviolence, they have refused to act. They have become viewers of their own reality show. They watched as Christians were slaughtered. They watched Assad kill thousands. They watched as ISIS brutalized everyone. And now they watch as their identity is overrun by refugees.

They have refused to go to war with ISIS, with Assad. They have refused to bully Iran into capitulation. Instead, they roll over. The lessons of the holocaust have long lasting ramifications. Unfortunately, Europe learned the wrong ones.

Ben Carson's Boo Boo and Little Ahmed's Clock Bomb



Edit: It turns out that Ahmed Mohamed's project really was a fraud and a hoax, just a gutted alarm clock.  I will write a followup piece to this about what this means in context of the hullabaloo that this whole situation caused.  Here is my original post:

Ezra Drissman, the wonderful man who lets me write these obnoxious, cuss-word filled blog posts, allowed me to go past my deadline and that’s a good thing because, initially, I was just going to write about the clock bomb kid, but now I've got something even more juicy.  Presidential hopeful Ben Carson has put himself on the politically correct chopping block for stating that he would not want a Muslim president.  Let us now examine this comment, the clock bomb kid and how the west regards Islam.

In Irving,TX, a boy named Ahmed Mohammed brought his science project to school, showed it to six different teachers and one of them, out of safety concerns, reported it to the authorities because it looked like a bomb.  It wasn’t a bomb; it was a clock.  And the kid was Muslim and had dark skin.
In my mind President Obama breathed deeply, smiled and said out loud, “mwahahaha, AT LAST, the human interest story I’ve been looking for!  Finally I’ve got THE FUCKING STORY that will allow me to declaratively say that Muslims, especially those with dark skin are an oppressed minority victim group and make it so, if anybody says otherwise, I can permanently tar and feather them as racist and Islamophobic” before stroking his pet cat Furball.

It’s not so much that we don’t have freedom of speech; it’s that we don’t have freedom of skepticism.  Well, let me clarify; you still have freedom of speech and freedom of skepticism from the government (so far), but, if you make any statements that can be perceived as hateful, you will be fired from your big job or blacklisted (just ask Juan Williams).  The only way you can get away with saying whatever you want is if you’re on the down low where your company is small and doesn’t monitor what you do or if you’re Bill Maher and will make money no matter what.

So, the narrative is that little Ahmed Mohammed was discriminated against because he’s a dark skinned Muslim and, well that’s that.  Forget that his little project looked like a bomb or that he’s a Muslim that lives twenty five miles away from where two ISIS sympathizing Muslims tried to assassinate people for drawing Muhammad.  He’s a Muslim, he’s got dark skin, they called the cops and therefore they are racist and Islamophobic.

Assuming the worst – that the teacher wasn’t just erring on the side of caution, but, indeed felt that little Ahmed Mohamed’s being a Muslim was justification to call the police given that he brought a device that very much resembled a bomb – why is calling the police to question a suspect device a bad thing?  Which therefore makes me wonder that, when Ben Carson said he would not want a Muslim for a president, why is that also a bad thing?

I can conjecture that people feel that it’s wrong and discriminatory to single out a group of people by saying that a.) they are less trustworthy with devices that look like explosives and b.) their cultural background puts them in strict opposition to their being able to be leaders of a western country.  But, in both cases, the facts speak for themselves.

Why, then I ask the brilliant thinking liberal minds of the world is there, at this point, no such thing as "Buddhophobia", "Hinduphobia" or "Sikhophobia"?  Because nobody within their religious ranks has done anything to make people afraid of them!  You might say that some dumb hillbilly might mistake a Sikh for a Muslim, but once the differences between the styles of head dress and styles of life are cleared up – therefore explaining that the Sikhism is the peaceful one – then, we come right back to the fact that, it is Islam that the person was afraid of in the first place.

Now, I’m not going to conjecture what Ben Carson might think of a Sikh, Hindu or Buddhist being the president of the country.  Maybe someone should ask him and see if he thinks only a religious Christian should be the president, but his sentiment that a Muslim probably shouldn’t be the commander in chief of the free world holds quite a bit of water.

Once we, ONCE AGAIN, make the point clear that Islam isn’t a race, but a religion, then the question we have to ask liberals is why would you want a Muslim for a president?   If Barack Obama was so quick to dismiss his being a Muslim, clearly there must be something problematic about having a Muslim being the president of the free world.  Otherwise, why would he be so concerned about denying this fact rather than just saying, “it’s none of your business what religion I practice”?  But, the other question to address is that, given that the left is so quick to accuse conservatives and Republicans of being right wing Christian zealots, why on earth, would they condemn Ben Carson's comments when Islam is even more illiberal?

Why would the same people who support same sex marriage, equality for women and an all around socially and sexually permissive culture want to elect a politician who comes from a faith that is just the opposite of that?  Why, if liberals are so quick to condemn George W. Bush as a Christian neo-con who hates women and gays, would they want a person from an even more conservative religion to lead their country?

Once a liberal can answer this question – and we hope that the answer is, “wait, no we wouldn’t want that” – then we can begin to open up the liberals' minds and perspectives and maybe get them to realize that, because Islam is a religion with a lot of nefarious baggage, then maybe we can also get them to see  that it’s time we drop this politically correct garbage and encourage erring on the side of caution.

Ted Cruz is Sucking at the Teet of Donald Trump

I know there are a lot of Ted Cruz supporters out there. I too keep waiting for him to push and shine through on policy both foreign and domestic. However, he keeps shying away from the spotlight. Unless he is near Donald Trump. It was highlighted last week during the Iran rally. Trump and Cruz led the charge. Cruz seems to relish in the boorishness of Donald Trump. He looks to Trump to be the villain and that way Cruz can shine.

Cruz last night was timid and quiet. If he is waiting for his turn on the stage than he may be too late. Earlier on in this ridiculously long election Cruz and Trump had a meeting. Maybe Cruz just is letting Trump have his way and making room for Cruz? Who knows. I do know that as a policy person, Cruz has not been able to get through what he has hoped for.

I think know is the time for Cruz to stop sucking up to Trump and use his intellect to shine. If not, that we need him to do his job in the Senate.

Obama just destroyed the Democratic Party

President Obama's Iran Deal is about to go through. The agreement has a 25% public approval rating and nearly 60% bipartisan opposition. In the President's quest to validate his peace prize, he has destroyed the Democratic Party. As a God believing person, I know that the world will be ok. That doesn't mean there won't be dire consequences to this deal, but the world will survive. The American spirit will rally and will hopefully get past this Presidency. However, his party may not.

For all the talk about how right wing the Republican party is, the left has taken over the Democratic Party. This deal has pushed and shown that there is no room for disagreement. Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer have no room in today's party. Maybe it is time for them to form a new party. A third party candidate from the old Democrats who believed in social justice and a strong international presence. A party that believed in free market economics with a hint of government oversight.

Obama should have learned actually from the Israeli left. During the 90's they signed an agreement called the Oslo Accords. Many critics pointed out that Yasser Arafat's rhetoric did not change and was still training terrorists. Despite the rhetoric, the Israeli left forged on and signed the agreement. The left felt that this was the best deal they could get despite the fact that Arafat was a murderer. About 10 years later the second Intifada started and hundreds of Israelis were murdered and maimed. The left has not won a national election since.

Obama has ensured that the left will not win another major election. The only question is, how many people will die before that happens?

We are Not a Theocracy!


Recently a county clerk in the great State of Kentucky took a stand against gay marriage. After the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal, couples from across the nation went to their local offices and filed papers to be legally married. Kim Davis, who is a born again Christian in good faith could not and would not issue the licenses. Here is the problem. We do not live in a Theocracy. Many people disagreed with the ruling on gay marriage. While I fell on the opposite argument and supported the allowing of gay marriage I do not malign the people who did not.

Kim Davis could have quit, resigned, asked to be removed from office. Instead she chose to defy the law. We are a nation that has laws and sometimes we disagree with the outcome of those laws. As a public employee, she does not have the same leverage as a regular citizen. She was hired by the citizens to follow the law and whether she agrees, that is the law.

I am sure plenty of clerks around the country can name 5-10 laws that are absolutely dumb, but still follow it. If people are unhappy with the law, elect folks who will try and change the law. Of course, the people who are supporting Kim Davis are the same folks who didn't vote for Mitt Romney because he wasn't "conservative enough". My question is, how is that theocracy working out for people?

Taxes Make Me Free

A friend had a customer say this to him about why she votes for the Democratic Party. She came from a nationalist country Venezuela. A country with no taxes where everything is nationalized; you don't have freedoms. "When we came here to the states we were glad to pay taxes because that's what keeps us free."  In other words our taxes help promote our freedoms because the government doesn't have the control over us like a nationalists country does.

If you are confused by her statement you are not along. But in order to answer her, we have to understand that she is emotionally attached to paying taxes. It seems in her mind that taxes help pay for things like Medicare, Medicaid, and social services. Since she pays with her own money, she seemingly has a say in how it gets disbursed.

One key to this story is that this woman is Jewish. It is a significant fact because many Jews feel an obligation to the poor and needy. The American social net is viewed as a wonderful thing. Since the Government reaches more people, it is able to make sure that no one across this giant country goes hungry, in theory.

When she hears that Republicans hate taxes, she equates that with hating poor people. There is some truth the that comparison. Since she views taxes as a way to help. I am willing to venture a guess that many voters view taxes in this way. Their taxes fund the social net of society and are dubious to cut taxes because they don't want to hurt poor people.

Republican's need to heed this lesson. I think that the majority of Americans like the idea of taking care of the poor and needy. The party must make sure that instead of talking about how bad taxes are, they should talk about better ways to help the poor and needy. One example is spending money with non profits who are in the poor communities and can reach people better than a big government program.

I am curious to hear other peoples opinions on the statement that "taxes keep me free" idea. In order to present coherent policy, one must understand the emotion as to why people vote and act the way they do.