In 1941, a groundbreaking movie was to be released titled, Citizen Kane. There are several factors that make this film unique.

For starters, the lead actor, Orson Welles, also directed, produced, and co-wrote the film. He was also given creative control that had never before or since been afforded to any director. The reason that no audience will ever see a colourized version of the film is that Welles’ authority even included the right to refuse such a revision.

In fact, he was afforded sweeping powers because he was already being hailed as a wunderkind. His radio treatment of H.G. Welles’ (no relation) War of the Worlds on Halloween night in 1938, caused pandemonium as a large swath of the public were convinced, due to the “breaking news report” style of storytelling, that the U.S. was under an attack by aliens that landed in a field in Grover’s Mill, New Jersey.

It should be added that Welles was 23 at the time of the War of the Worlds broadcast and 26 when Citizen Kane was released.

Oh, and Kane has long been regarded as a contender for the greatest film ever made.

The reason I bring this up is that the radio broadcast is not the only time that Welles caused a major panic. Citizen Kane almost never saw daylight as Orson Welles had made a formidable enemy of one William Randolph Hurst; a man who had put the “yellow” in yellow journalism after buying up the largest chain of newspapers in the US. He also happened to be very well connected politically and culturally.

Those in the know were clued into the fact that Kane was a rather transparent fictionalized depiction of the newspaper magnate. The 1989 film RKO 281 is fascinating of itself as it addresses the backstory of the fight to get the movie made and released. RKO was the studio that made the film and 281 was the lot number of the film. While Hurst and his powerful allies could not prevent the film from getting into theatres, he dealt a fatal blow to Welles’ promising career. The movie received several Academy Award nominations, but the Hollywood hoi polloi in attendance dutifully booed every time the film was nominated.

You might be thinking, that’s an interesting bit of Tinseltown trivia, but why devote an article to this some 80 years later? Your curiosity will be sated in due time.

A controversy that has far more public notoriety involves the “red scare” and blacklisting of Hollywood screenwriters, actors, directors, etc. who were fingered by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. We have been bombarded with films bemoaning that dark period in movie history with “McCarthyism” still being applied to describe, “the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-Communist activity, in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.” Merriam-Webster goes on to identify it as “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

Ponder that for a moment, if you will.

But! – I hear many of you saying – the notion that Hollywood could somehow be overrun by communists who use their films to promote as propaganda to push their collectivist worldview could never happen. It is and always has been a nothingburger and anyone who would fall for such nonsense is a conspiracy theorist.

If you think you’ve heard the invocation of a conspiracy theory, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.

When the movie, The Sound of Freedom hit the theatres starting on July 4^th, there was another equally disturbing sound that accompanied the release. For those unfamiliar with this film – that has consistently dominated the US box office, it tells the true account of a Homeland Security agent who decides to devote himself to rescuing children from the sex trafficking trade. Just like with Citizen Kane, there are several distinctive aspects that accompanied the movie’s release.

For starters, the movie was originally made by 20^th Century Fox, but it ultimately got released by Angel Studios. To grasp the relevance, we need some more details.

The film was completed in 2018 – five full years before it got released. It should be noted that Disney purchased 20^th Century Fox in 2019 and the project was under their aegis when the decision was made to not release the film. But wait, there’s more!

The studio that did release the movie – Angel Studios – has a decidedly Christian focus and most notably, they are behind the series, The Chosen, which attempts to give a creative spin on the account of Jesus’ life and ministry. The main star of TSoF is also a devout Catholic, Jim Caviezel, who is best known for his portrayal of Jesus in Mel Gibson’s, The Passion of the Christ. It should be noted that many of the same people attacked The Passion by insisting the depiction of Christ’s torture was “pornographic.” I’m  not sure when this became a bad thing for the left.  Caviezel has largely been blacklisted, not for his communist sympathies, but for his being outspoken about his faith.

So, in summary, The Sound of Freedom is not overtly a Christian movie, but was shelved by Disney with no apparent explanation. Consequently, a Christian studio took it upon themselves to get the movie distributed or it doubtless would never see light of day. The film stars a Christian actor who has essentially been blacklisted due to his faith. Now, let’s look at the rollout and media reaction to the movie.

Those not opting for the sound of silence have devoted a great deal of coverage to attacking the movie as being “Q-Anon adjacent.” The Guardian joined in as well. The attacks have been directed toward Caviezel with the most glaring example coming from that bastion of journalistic acumen and integrity, Rolling Stone. The author scorches the film with a 60 degrees of separation harangue over the film fomenting conspiracy theories about wealthy elitists harvesting adrenochrome as an elixir for eternal life.

If you’ve seen the film and are confused where that content shows up in the movie, you did not miss that segment while popping out for wildly overpriced refreshments. Unless these critics somehow saw the “Caviezel cut” that was never released to the public, the story never even dips its toe into such a conspiracy adjacent narrative. They go further yet, leaving no rolling stone unturned, by lambasting any potential audience members by stating it is “a superhero movie for dads with brainworms.”

For those unacquainted with the term, the urban dictionary defines a brainworm as “a theoretical condition where someone acts irrational or delusional in public or on the internet.” I believe the writer got the term right, but, as Maxwell Smart would say, he missed the subject “by that much.”

Other critics referenced include unnamed lawyers and child sex trafficking workers. The complaints range from, declaring most kids fall more in the 15-to-17-year age range and fewer are the younger aged children depicted in the movie. Again, strictly according to these critics, the indictment is that those being sexually exploited were more likely to be mid-teens rather than pre-teens.

Even the eminently relevant Sir Roger Moore weighed in by criticizing Caviezel’s acting ability, referring to him as “just not an interesting expressive actor.” I’ll just leave this here.

What do each of these critiques have in common? Not one of them deals with the veracity or quality of the actual movie and each time they were projecting their own take on what they say are Caviezel’s Q-Anon views. One complained that the story was too anodyne while one equated the grooming process of applying heavy lipstick and taking cheesecake photos as reminiscent of Jon-Benet Ramsey (who, if I’m not mistaken, met a horrific end).

One thing I knew I didn’t want to see while watching this film was actual child exploitation in a movie about child exploitation. Knowing it was being promoted by a Christian-based film studio, I knew that erring on the side of anodyne was fine with me. While I have no point of comparison, I can guarantee that pedophiles took far less pleasure in watching The Sound of Freedom than the much ballyhooed and never criticized Netflix series, Cuties. Again, it was those stick-in-the-mud Christians who pushed to have the series dropped and/or terminated their Netflix subscriptions.

Efforts were also made to downplay the attendance at the movie by suggesting that the box office receipts for the blockbuster release of the new Indiana Jones movie (incidentally, a Disney film), by suggesting IJ spent some time in the lead. A few things are worth noting. First, in addition to the mass promotion and budget of the Indiana Jones movie, it was also in almost twice as many theatres. Furthermore, for the first time ever there were numerous accounts from those attending screenings of TSoF that theatres suddenly were suffering mass air conditioning malfunctions, having emergency alarms inexplicably go off during the movie, and having showings cancelled pre-emptively based on obstacles to showing the film.

In addition to the curious backlash against the film from the left-wing press, there is another colossus in the living room that needs to be addressed. I couldn’t help but notice a couple of details.

• While attacking the movie as conspiratorial and Q-Anon-adjacent based on what was not depicted in the movie, they didn’t debunk the experience of Tim Ballard, the man who the film was based on. He lays claim to rescuing hundreds of kids with his career continuing over the intervening years while the movie sat in a vault. Most failed to comment on the fact that one could hardly select a more noble endeavour than rescuing children forced into sexual slavery. I doubt those who concurred that it was, “a superhero movie for dads with brainworms,” did these same people mock the absurd storylines of the Marvel and DC Comic superheroes which, I would remind them, are fictional. I enjoy those movies because they are entertaining and it’s fun watching good defeat evil. Seeing a film like TSoF, I am inspired by the courage and tenacity that I could only dream of having and delight in seeing innocent children rescued from genuine horror. Are their hearts dead enough that they don’t care, are they so partisan that they can’t ever venerate anyone outside their social and political spheres, or is there a much, much darker explanation?
• Were they upset because they are trying to make the outrageous claim that there is no child sex trafficking? The leaders of the west (notably including Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden) tell us that the greatest threat our nations face is that of white supremacy. I would like to directly challenge that as patently absurd and state that abortion, child sex trafficking, bodily mutilation for the myth of “gender reassignment,” and other forms of child abuse are the most heinous and dangerous threats, not only to our nations, but to humanity. Among the main reasons is that, unlike white supremacy, those crimes committed against children are widespread. As much of a moral stain and level of abject idiocy that exists among white (or any other group driven by delusions of race-based superiority), it is mostly used as a baseless attack from the hard left against those with conservative views. In fact, fixating on racial division is far more detrimental than the handful of real neo-Nazis who have no friends outside their own circles. Children are clearly the least powerful members of society and therefore most in need of protection from malevolent forces. Even if child sex trafficking was not widespread – which it definitely is – there is no reason to complain it is getting too much attention. That is an absurdity coming from a Hollywood that suffers from the brainworm of McCarthyism.
• If this was not an accurate depiction, where are all the movies and documentaries from Hollywood that do portray the reality of the child sex trade? I love the D.L. Moody quote: “I like my way of doing things better than your way of not doing them.” It is easy to criticize how one could have improved on how they attempted to carry out a just act, but it is quite another to be more effective or accurate in taking action. Anyone who has leveled criticisms against this movie or the efforts of Tim Ballard to rescue children, but has not been actively working against or drawing attention to the scourge of child sex trafficking should be ignored. In fact, my default assumption is that such people have something to hide. It brings to mind another quote from that dead white male, William Shakespeare: “Methinks the lady (or man) doth protest too much.”
• Why is it that so many of those facilitating and advocating open borders are the same ones denouncing the movie? It is patently obvious that the policy of open borders is a green light to drug cartels and child sex traffickers. Anyone making the claim that an open border policy benefits refugees and ensures we are getting skilled labour are fools or know it to be a lie. It is akin to getting rid of screeners, metal detectors, and passport checks at airports; eliminating voter ID confirmation during elections, (or, to put it in the way a radical leftist would understand, allowing parents who vehemently oppose gender indoctrination into their child’s school board meetings). Removing scrutiny in areas that criminal actors not only can, but are motivated to exploit guarantees that the criminal elements are more likely to carry out evil. It knowingly facilitates mules and endangers citizens – let alone genuine refugees who were fleeing such evils. It turns out that not only does open borders (paired with the elimination of voter ID) intentionally pad the voter roles for Democrats and provide cheap labour for Republicans and the donor class, it also allows child sex trafficking to flourish.

Now, let me put some meat on the bone for anyone ready to call me out for invoking a strawman argument by suggesting that there might be complicity in a coverup. You can start by offering a reasonable response to my 3 points.

I now give you, the late Jeffrey Epstein.

Whatever notoriety surrounded Jeffrey Epstein is now all but forgotten. Sure, he was known to hobnob with the foie gras and caviar crowd of the political and celebrity class. They would jet off to Epstein Island on his private jet known as the “Lolita Express:” a reference to the novel by Vladimir Nabokov where a college professor with a fetish for underage girls, kidnaps and sexually exploits 12-year-old Lolita.  Everything about Epstein would have been a flashing neon sign spelling out pervert, so no one could have innocently stumbled into his world – especially with so many stumbling aboard again and again.

The A-list celebrities, Presidents, and similar cultural and ruling elites were put in the spotlight when Epstein was arrested and awaiting trial. Many were salivating when they learned that the FBI carried out a raid on his island home; reportedly retrieving various hard drives. It was reputed that Epstein had recorded trysts by the rich and prurient to use as blackmail. Epstein was facing countless charges of sex trafficking in underaged girls.

The raid, which was curiously not carried out until 2 days after Epstein’s death, was reported with great fanfare and with then Attorney General, Bill Barr, promising that he was committed to seeing justice for the victims of Epstein’s exploitation of young women – many who were underage.

Then, everything got quiet.

Let’s look back for a moment at the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s premature descent into hell.

• Epstein was arrested July 6, 2019 and held at New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Centre and placed in the general population
• He was moved to the prison’s “Special Housing Unit” (SHU) the next day due to media attention
• He pled “Not Guilty” the following day and, although he reported he was not suicidal, he was “pre-emptively evaluated for suicide risk” and placed on “Psychological Observation” – a step down from “Suicide Watch.”
• On July 10^th he was taken off Psychological Observation, but kept in SHU because he was seen as a suicide risk despite Epstein’s denial and not being found in his psych evaluation
• On July 18, Epstein was denied bail
• On July 23, the persistent determination of Epstein being suicidal bore fruit as he was reportedly found on the floor of his cell with a strip of bedsheet around his neck
• Epstein had been returned to psychological observation 31 hours after being placed on suicide watch (on July 24)
• July 30, Epstein was moved to a cell close to the Corrections Officer’s common area and he was given a cellmate
• Epstein returned to court on July 31^st to set a tentative trial date – U.S. Marshalls again thought him to be suicidal
• On August 1^st, a suicide risk assessment was again completed and the determination was that no suicide watch was necessary
• On August 9^th, 2,000 pages of documents were released related to his trial and Epstein’s cellmate was transferred out
• The next day, he was found dead in his cell

Some crazy conspiracy theorists tried to suggest Epstein’s death may not have been the inevitable culmination of a man whom several prison workers (not including Epstein or the prison Psychiatrist) saw as a walking suicidal timebomb. Here are some of the nitpicky details used to launch the subsequent ubiquitous #Epsteindidntkillhimself.

• Epstein was considering cooperating and naming names of the players involved in the international sex ring – oh, and did I mention these were among the most powerful people around?
• The 2,000 pages of documents implicated several top Democrats in the pedophile ring
• The suicide watch had been lifted despite persistent claims from prison staff that he was suicidal and was placed in isolation which is contraindicated for someone who is genuinely suicidal
• The cameras inauspiciously failed to operate at Epstein’s cell during the window of time when he “offed himself”, so there is no footage
• On the other hand, the prison stated that camera footage revealed the guards were not at their posts and failed to do their half hour checks that fateful night. Their defence was that they simply forgot.
• One of those guarding Epstein was not actually a guard
• The guards both fell asleep during that window of time
• The prison had gone 40 years without a suicide – prior to Epstein
• Epstein had stated that the previous “suicide attempt” was actually someone else attempting to kill him
• Epstein did not have paper sheets as is standard for inmates – especially suicidal ones
• Epstein told his lawyers on the Friday, the day before his death, that he would see them on Sunday
• His former cellmate reported that he heard nothing
• In order to hang himself with the non-standard prison sheets, he needed to kneel down to commit the act
• An independent autopsy completed after the one completed by the prison M.E. showed broken bones in his neck inconsistent with kneeling to hang himself, but common in strangulation deaths

I know how crazy this sounds, but I’m asking that you join me for a brief excursion on the crazy train and I’ll explain how this is relevant to The Sound of Freedom.

Imagine you are among the politically-connected class and/or a Hollywood megastar whose sexual appetites might run toward young girls. Your hubris grows exponentially in reassurance that you can get away with your sexual proclivities given the heft of your fellow accomplices and the powerlessness of those at the receiving end of your sexual indiscretions. This is compounded by an unending supply of alcohol and ready access to bumps of cocaine or whatever may be your vice of choice.

Now, let’s imagine that those willing to traffic in young girls might lack the moral centre to refrain from taking advantage of you? It’s tough to accuse individuals trafficking in child sex slaves when you are on video as the one involved in stealing their innocence. We now have the prisoner’s dilemma in reverse.

The prisoner’s dilemma is the strategy used in police procedurals where two or more are implicated in a crime. The suspects are taken to different rooms and confessions are extracted by telling each of the co-conspirators that one of their team is selling them out.

In the case of child sex trafficking, everyone has a vested interest in the cover up because child sex trafficking is as evil as it gets. The powerful become easy targets of manipulation by those who are able to make their deeds public. At this point, those with power will lie, deceive, and allow some to be abused or even killed (for example, pushing a deadly pharmaceutical on the public) since your vulnerability to being exposed, discredited, or even murdered yourself makes you susceptible to committing great evil to mollify your blackmailers. In fact, you have a collective interest in discrediting and burying anyone who might turn the focus in your direction because the thread being pulled might come back to you.

Furthermore, once you are complicit in promoting something like a deadly injection on the public, the sword of Damocles becomes far more threatening and you now face the danger of being hanged for crimes against humanity.

I know this sounds far fetched, but you know it is undeniably possible since those in power have the control to surveil, punish, censor, malign, and otherwise commit abuses to keep their authority and hold any threats at bay. If you’d like, ignore the last tangent and go back to how this relates to the response to the movie, let’s review some facts:

• Many Hollywood stars and politicians traveled to Epstein Island
• The FBI has amassed evidence they have not released, yet the threat of retribution over Epstein’s trafficking crimes has subsided
• His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged with sex trafficking – without the public testimony of any victim and no charges against any victimizer. This begs the question, what exactly is the crime when there is no victim and no criminal?
• The two guards on duty the night of Epstein’s “suicide” had their charges dropped just after Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty and prior to her sentencing. One might ask whether this sent her a message that she should be quiet since they killed Epstein and no one is facing any consequences.
• Bill Gates was one of those who spent time with Epstein and went to his island
• There is no evident investigation of the crimes on Epstein Island and the media is labelling anyone who reaches the obvious conclusion that Epstein didn’t kill himself is deemed a conspiracy theorist
• The movie does depict a raid on an island where children are being trafficked
• The same ones condemning the movie have railed against Elon Musk reinstating accounts for people with non-leftist political views, but they were silent over his crackdown on Twitter websites that promote pedophilia

One of the most amusing things I have heard when there was focus on Bill Clinton’s regular trips on the Lolita Express is that it was really Trump who buried the investigation because of his association with Epstein. There are a couple of ties between Trump and Epstein, but it should be noted that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mara Lago for his inappropriate conduct. Trump may have been complicit, but he should be investigated with all others. The notion, however, that legacy media actually believes Trump was uniquely involved should explain why they went to such lengths on the Russian collusion and phone call impeachments, yet decided his violating a child sex slave and covering it up is not worth the trouble.

Let me also remind you of what William Randolph Hurst did to Orson Welles. Now imagine platoons of Hursts with unfathomable wealth and resources to control the flow of information (oh, as well as writing and enforcing laws, and with full control of the police, courts, military, intelligence agencies, etc.) and you have plenty to hide or the ability to expose what other powerful people want to remain hidden. I think what we have here is the taste of depravity and the smell of fear.