Hollywood Finally Starts Cranking Out the Morale-Boosting Propaganda Pics... On Behalf of the Islamist Terrorists

This makes me physically angry. I don't know what other response could possibly be appropriate.

Can there be any doubt at this point whose side the left is on?:

Buried inside a July 1 New York Times story about Hollywood's boyish new sex symbols (Toby Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, et al.) is the revelation of something much more interesting. Hollywood is suddenly making big-budget epics about the subjugation of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf by the white-skinned peoples of the West. Is this, um, really a good idea?

"But wait," stout defenders of liberty may say. "If Hollywood stops making big-budget movies about the Crusades and Alexander the Great, the terrorists will have won." The obvious logical flaw here is that Hollywood had no interest in making such movies before the World Trade Center fell. The urge to make them now seems not only reckless, but perverse.

Tim Noah is generally a useless hyperpartisan dickweed, but he strikes gold here. I deleted big sections of his piece to comply with fair use, but seriously, read the whole damn thing.

This is absolutely disgusting. I can only repeat Noah's conclusion: Hollywood had no interest in these subjects before 9-11. But after 9-11, it suddenly has three major films in production giving succor to the terrorist cause.

Michelle Malkin previously castigated Hollywood for its perverse "Let's take a wait and see attitude" regarding making patriotic, pro-American films in a time of war.

But it seems that wasn't perverse nor transgressive enough for our brave artists.

They're now manufacturing pro-Islamist entertainments. They not only refuse to show the America/Western Civilization in a favorable light, they are determined to actively inflame anti-American/anti-Western passions.

Major Hat-Tip to Ken J for pointing this article out to me. Lord knows that I wouldn't have read Tim Noah without his link.

Does Anyone Remember... the plot and villains of numerous films being changed in order to spare Muslims' sensitivities?

The Sum of All Fears had its villains changed from Muslim extremists to conveniently-white-and-Western neo-Nazis.

The Arnold Schwarzenegger film Collateral Damage was changed in the pre-production-phase, due to Muslim complaints, so that the villains weren't Islamic terrorists but were, rather, Columbian drug-dealers. (Don't fucking Columbian drug-dealers or Neo-Nazis have any lobbyists in LA???!!!)

If Hollywood can manage to deftly avoid inflaming American passions against Muslim extremists, why do they seem incapable -- or unwilling -- to similarly avoid inflaming the passions of Muslim extremists against Americans?

Seems they can't have it both ways. They can't freely change the plots and characters in some films in order to avoid taking a position on the current war while simultaneously claiming "We must follow our artistic muses with no thought of outside considerations whatsoever" when they're making films which will almost certainly incite Muslim extremists' passions against America.

Hey, Hollywood: An Irish-descended friend of mine tells me he feels like punching Britons in the face whenever he watches In the Name of the Father or Braveheart. And he's not kidding. He may be half-kidding, but he means it just the same.

What do you think the response will be in Islamabad to your Crusader film, praytell?

posted by Ace at 04:48 PM

| Access Comments