Support.
Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!
Contact
Top Headlines
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: The elections! NYC, Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, California, and the future prospects of the Republican party...
Update on Scott Adams:
Scott Adams had approval for this cancer drug but they hadn't scheduled him to get it. He was taking a turn for the worse. Trump had told him to call if he needed anything, so he did. Talked to Don Jr (who is in Africa) , then RFK Jr, then Dr Oz. Someone talked to Kaiser and he was scheduled. Shouldn't have needed it but he did and he says it saved his life.
Posted by: Notsothoreau
Funny retro kid costumes, thanks to SMH
Good to see people honoring Lamont the Big Dummy
Four hours of retro Halloween commercials and specials
The first short is the original 1996 appearance of "Sam," the dangerous undead trick-or-treater from Trick r' Treat.
On Wednesday, we'll see the "Beaver Super-Moon." Which sounds hot.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Historian and Pundit Robert Spencer joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about the Islamists in our midst: Mamdani in NYC, all across Europe, and others.
Full Episode: The Hardy Boys (and Nancy Drew) Meet Dracula
I don't remember this show, except for remembering that Nancy Drew was hot and the opening credits were foreboding and exicting
Schmoll: 53% of New Jersey likely voters say their neighbors are voting for Ciattarelli, while 47% say the cheater/grifter Mikie Sherrill
The "who do you think your neighbors are voting for" question is designed to avoid the Shy Tory problem, wherein conservative people lie to schmollsters because they don't want to go on record with a likely left-winger telling them who they're really voting for. So instead the question is who do you think your neighbors are voting for, so people can talk about who they themselves support without actually having to admit it to a left-wing rando stranger recording their answers on the phone.
TJM Complains about Wreck-It Ralph The very topical premiere of TJM's YouTube Channel.
Interesting football history: How the forward pass was created in response to the nineteen -- 19! -- people killed playing football in 1905 alone
The original rules of football did not allow forward passes. The ball was primarily advanced by running, with blockers forming lines with interlocked arms and just smashing into the similarly-interlocked defensive lines. It was basically Greek hoplite spear formations but with a semi-spherical ball. As calls to ban the sport entirely grew, some looked for ways to de-emphasize mass charges as the primary means of advancing the ball, and some specifically championed allowing a passer to throw the ball forward.
Sydney Sweeney unleashes the silver orbs
Thanks to @PatriarchTree
Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.
-- G.K. Chesterton
[CBD]
Recent Entries
Daily Tech News 7 November 2025
Thursday Overnight Open Thread - November 6, 2025 [Doof]
Thursday Night Cafe
Republicans -- Get This -- Compromise With Democrats for CR
"We Must Stop Fighting, We Cannot Divide the Right*"
* "Except for Tucker Carlson Who Is Allowed to Continue #Cancelling All Jewish Republicans He Doesn't Like"

The Blaze: We've Identified the J6 Pipe Bomber and It's a Government Worker at a Three-Letter Agency
Jeffrey Epstein's Former Cellmate Alleges: James Comey's Daughter, Federal Prosecutor Maureen Comey, Said That I Could Walk Free If I Falsely Claimed That Epstein Implicated Trump in His Pedo Schemes
Migrants Offer the Cultural Enrichment of Stalking Women and Demanding Sex
Trump Strikes Deal With Big Pharma to Reduce *American* Prices for Weight Loss Drugs Ozempic and Mounjaro
Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants, Who Boomers Know as "Nancy Pelosi," Finally Retires
Recent Comments
LKP: "My dad was there the day Castle Bravo went up on t ..." [view]

m: "Sydney Sweeney on Life at the Center of the Conver ..." [view]

m: "The Sydney Sweeney interview with the vile GQ inte ..." [view]

tcn, Pickle Queen in AK: "Why do we take up smoking? Because, in college, it ..." [view]

Debby Doberman Schultz: "Sweet dreams, Horde. ..." [view]

scurvy sea dog: "Oh, the ONT, she was angry tonight! ..." [view]

scampydog: "Late to the dance - on a tax rant/tangent. Thanks ..." [view]

MANFRED the Heat Seeking OBOE: "234 Don't understand why people take up smoking ..." [view]

FULL PORN MOVIES: "Leading porn websites offer secure and premium con ..." [view]

the way I see it: "What are the odds that of the 10 biggest Powerball ..." [view]

FeatherBlade: "[i]Don't understand why people take up smoking. An ..." [view]

tcn, Pickle Queen in AK: "Oh, and we shoot off the back porch. Probably not ..." [view]

tcn, Pickle Queen in AK: "I think this winter will be party after party. Tha ..." [view]

the way I see it: "Jill St John starred in the first Tony Rome movie. ..." [view]

Alberta Oil Peon: "Well, past midnight here, time for me to hit the s ..." [view]

Search


Bloggers in Arms

RI Red's Blog!
Behind The Black
CutJibNewsletter
The Pipeline
Second City Cop
Talk Of The Town with Steve Noxon
Belmont Club
Chicago Boyz
Cold Fury
Da Goddess
Daily Pundit
Dawn Eden
Day by Day (Cartoon)
EduWonk
Enter Stage Right
The Epoch Times
Grim's Hall
Victor Davis Hanson
Hugh Hewitt
IMAO
Instapundit
JihadWatch
Kausfiles
Lileks/The Bleat
Memeorandum (Metablog)
Outside the Beltway
Patterico's Pontifications
The People's Cube
Powerline
RedState
Reliapundit
Viking Pundit
WizBang
Faces From Ace's
The Rogues' Gallery.
Archives
Syndicate this site (XML)

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

« Nick Denton's New Blog: The Sassy, Jew-Hatin' Jihadette | Main | The Passion of the Oliver Stone »
July 01, 2004

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?

...

A new Hollywood genre struggles to be born: the 9/11 Apology Flick.

Prerelease buzz has it that the Crusader movie (whose original title, The Crusades, has now been changed to Kingdom of Heaven) casts Bloom not as a Crusader but as a plucky young peasant who fights to repel the Christian infidels from Jerusalem.

[details on the other pictures omitted, but worth reading]

...

It's quite possible that one or all of these movies will portray the West more favorably than Chatterbox presumes, or (in the case of Alexander's homosexuality) in a way that Egyptian and Iranian moviegoers might conceivably accept sympathetically. But that would only make these projects more provocative to Islamist terrorists, and therefore even less advisable. Why make these movies at all? ...

Where's Hollywood's customary timidity on the rare occasion when we need it? Can't it take a rain check?

"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