Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan? More like Noam Chomsky’s Jack Ryan
I know you’re not supposed to review a TV show on the basis of a single episode, but I don’t think I’m going to make it past episode one of the second season of Jack Ryan. Its full title is Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan but it might as well be called Noam Chomsky’s Jack Ryan.
Take the fictional version of Venezuela where most of the action is set. Its economy is in the toilet, the people are starving, and it’s on the verge of becoming a failed state. So far, so accurate. But the reason this Venezuela is such a basket case is not because it’s been ruled by a succession of corrupt socialist demagogues for the past 21 years, but because—wait for it—the President is a far-right populist with bad hair. But don’t worry, kids. There’s a challenger waiting in the wings whose planning to take him down at the forthcoming Presidential election: a middle-aged, female academic-turned-activist who believes in “social justice.” In case that’s too subtle for you, she even looks a bit like Elizabeth Warren.
Jack Ryan season two isn’t just the usual, run-of-the-mill, politically correct Hollywood gibberish like Watchmen. It’s as though the writers and producers have deliberately set out to troll conservatives. What are they going to do for an encore? Set season three in Cambodia circa 1977 and portray Pol Pot as a free market capitalist obsessed with Ayn Rand?
Perhaps John Krasinski, whose star vehicle this is, was stung by some of the woke criticism the first series attracted—“From frame to frame, Jack Ryan is an astonishing case study in toxic narratives,” said Vanity Fair’s Sonia Saraiya—and is trying to make amends. In one scene, we see John Krasinski being taken advantage of by a beautiful, Venezuelan secret agent who exploits his sense of male entitlement to get a look in his briefcase. Female ingenuity 1, toxic masculinity 0.
The whole episode plays like the TV equivalent of one of those grovelling apologies delivered by a celebrity who’s been called out by a Twitter mob. Perhaps, for saying something 15 years ago that breached a speech code put in place the other week. Although my prediction is that Krasinski and his crack team of TV professionals will end up falling foul of the purity policy anyway because it’ll be Jack Ryan that saves democracy in Venezuela, foiling a dastardly plot by the Trump stand-in to execute a military coup and ensuring the Warren look-a-like becomes President. Haven’t these bozos ever heard the phrase “white saviour?”
Maybe I’m looking for things to be offended by. Woke criticism is often unintentionally funny for precisely that reason, like Richard Brody’s New Yorker review of A Quiet Place, Krasinski’s directorial debut. Entitled ‘The Silently Regressive Politics of “A Quiet Place,” it took Krasinski to task for smuggling a white supremacist narrative into a fairly standard horror film. “In their enforced silence, these characters are a metaphorical silent—white—majority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the super-sensitive ears of the dark others,” wrote Brody. So A Quiet Place taps into the fear white people have of being turned on by people of colour for inadvertently saying the wrong thing? I have to confess, when I saw the movie last year, that didn’t occur to me. I just thought it was a fun ghost train ride.
I will allow the writers and producers this much: they probably aren’t aware of Venezuela’s totemic significance for conservatives like me as the latest in a long line of failed socialist experiments. In the UK, we’re in the midst of a General Election in which the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is an unreconstructed, old school socialist—a bit like Bernie Saunders, but without the energy. As recently as six years ago, Corbyn hailed Hugo Chavez as “an inspiration to us all,” and it’s clear that Corbyn’s policies would have a similar effect on the UK as Chavez’s in Venezuela. When Chávez came to power in 1998, 48 percent of households were living in poverty; in 2017, that figure was 82 percent.
I wasn’t surprised when President Maduro, Chavez’s successor, urged Venezuelans to stave off hunger by eating their pet rabbits. That’s the story of all socialist political projects: They begin with a vision of the universal brotherhood of man and end with people having to eat their own pets.
The half-wits who made season two of Jack Ryan probably aren’t aware of the connection between socialism and Venezuela’s penury and just made the President into a right-winger to take a shot at Trump. I might have been able to get past that if the show had been any better, but it was pure dreck, a liberal version of The A-Team. A step down from season one, which I hadn’t realized was possible. I’m going to switch to season three of The Bureau instead.
A poll conducted by American non-profit organization Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) found new and telling results in their the organization’s fourth Annual Report on their US-based poll, ‘Attitudes Toward Socialism, Communism, and Collectivism.’
According to this year’s data, 36 percent of Millennials (ages 23 to 38) supported communism, with opinions of capitalism in a free fall. Data finds that only half of all Millennials and Zoomers (ages 16-22) have a “favourable opinion” on capitalism.
While 50% of Millennials say they are “somewhat likely” and 20% of Millennials say they are “extremely likely” to vote for a socialist candidate, doubling from 10% in 2018, Americans overall are more hesitant about voting for a “democratic socialist” than they were last year (53% “never” or “hesitant” in 2019 versus 47% in 2018). Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
Other findings found that 72 of Americans polled said communism had killed less than 100 million people in the past 100 years, the number figure estimated by numerous institutions. On top of this, 15 percent of Millennials think the world would be better off “if the Soviet Union still existed.”
Perhaps most surprisingly, only 57 percent of Millennials surveyed believe that the U.S.’ Declaration of Independence better guarantees freedom and equality over the Communist Manifesto.
“The historical amnesia about the dangers of communism and socialism is on full display in this year’s report,” said Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. “When we don’t educate our youngest generations about the historical truth of 100 million victims murdered at the hands of communist regimes over the past century, we shouldn’t be surprised at their willingness to embrace Marxist ideas. We need to redouble our efforts to educate America’s youth about the history of communist regimes and the dangers of socialism today.”
Methodology: 2,518 respondents were surveyed then matched down to a sample of 2,100 to produce the final dataset. 2,000 respondents were matched to an adult (18+) frame and 100 respondents were matched to a 16-17 year-old sampling frame. (Gen Z [ages 16-22] 13%, Millennial [ages 23-38] 27%, Gen X [ages 39-54] 24%, Boomers [ages 55-73] 29%, Silent Generation [74+] 8%)
Trudeau takes questions from socialists seeking to "abolish capitalism and patriarchy" but not Andrew Lawton
According to Alex Boutilier from the Toronto Star, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took questions from a group called “Socialist Action”.
According to the group’s website: “Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action
Recently, the Liberals have blocked journalist Andrew Lawton from True North from reporting on their campaign events, despite the organization being a registered charity and Lawton having received accreditation in the past.
The Trudeau campaign even went so far as calling the police on Lawton and having him escorted out of a venue.
As pointed out by Lawton, one of the group’s main political program is to abolish capitalism and patriarchal institutions.
Socialist Action describes itself as a political action organization, not predominantly a media outlet. This is one of its goals. pic.twitter.com/tUTBfbLZvz— Andrew Lawton (@AndrewLawton) September 30, 2019
This is not the first time that the Liberals have sought to limit media access to events.
In one case the Liberals sought to prohibit both Andrew Lawton and Rebel Media’s Sheila Gunn Reid from a press conference with Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland at a media freedom summit in the U.K. However, other members of the media refused to attend if the two were not allowed entry, which they eventually were.
Archeologists were recently reminded of a particularly gruesome part of ancient Peruvian culture, as they discovered a massive graveyard made up of the skeletal remains.
Experts believe that they’ve unearthed the bodies of 227 children, all between the ages of four and 14, sacrificed to placate the gods of rain and floods sometime between 1200 and 1400.
Other nearby sites found during the excavations prior found other shocking yet similar discovery; the corpses of over 100 children and 200 llamas, only miles away from the Huanchaco scene, believed to be similar in nature.
The thought that a civilization would justify the murder of their own children in an attempt to change the weather is stomach-churning. The violent nature of the event makes it even worse to think about. Sacrificing your future to the gods in exchange for good weather, though, is not something we’ve grown out of.
To “properly” sacrifice the future generation in hopes of changing the weather, one only needs to look at the climate cult that has arisen and intensified in the last few years.
“Birth strikers,” for example, are climate activists who have made the choice to no longer bear children out of fear the future generations will experience famine, flooding, extreme droughts, or severe natural disasters, leaving the planet unfit for humans.
The movement also looks to curb on “overpopulation,” helping to preserve the planet by not having any more children who would take up the planet’s natural finite resources.
CNN’s climate doomsday meeting
The climate cultists have stepped into the limelight in recent years in response to the observable changing weather patterns. While we should all be concerned about our environment, the inhumane behaviour that is being “justified” by climate change is what’s most alarming.
This was put on to full display last night during CNN’s climate town hall event, in which several US presidential candidates took the stage to discuss our future and the relationship between civilization and Earth.
Let there be no confusion, either: This is a doomsday cult. When presidential candidate and US Senator Elizabeth Warren discussed the future of humanity, she stated that “we’ve got, what? Eleven years, maybe…”
This eleven to twelve-year figure comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report,
The problem with reports like these is that “doomsday” reports of similar nature have popped up numerous times over the last few decades. A senior U.N. environmental official said “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels” if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. That prediction, again made by the U.N., was clearly off the mark.
Perhaps most famously, former US Presidential candidate Al Gore and his climate-cult classic, An Inconvenient Truth, missed the mark on plenty of grandiose predictions, like that Mount Kilimanjaro would no longer have snow on it.
Candidates gave what can be described as “Green-Authoritarianism,” vastly expanding government’s control and influence over people’s day to day lives. It’s not just one candidate espousing these ideas, either. It’s the mainstream.
Take Kamala Harris’ stance on educating the public on “the effect of our eating habits on the environment,” even going os far as to say that she would change the dietary guidelines to reduce the amount of red meat you can eat.
Another key point mentioned by the climate doomsayers was abortion. The hot-button issue was mentioned side-by-side with overpopulation, notably in a question to candidate Bernie Sanders.
The question, which talked about unsustainable human population growth, was thrown at Sanders, to which he gave an answer that outlined the idea of funding birth control, as well as abortions to third world countries around the world.
The DNC’s acceptance of radical climate alarmism legitimizes doomsday ideologues who are in full propaganda mode, pulling every trick in the book.
Brainwashing the youth
Take, for example, climate figurehead Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish climate alarmist who has Asperger’s syndrome, along with selective mutism and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
The reason Thunberg’s role as a figurehead is seen as so cynical to some is due to how incredibly difficult it is to attack her ideology without directly attacking a 16-year-old girl. We’ve already seen one Canadian federal party leader try—and completely blunder—an attempt to call out her ideas and motives.
There are valid criticisms of Thunberg. The language she uses, particularly the call for people to “panic,” is alarmist at worst. But she is not to blame for her behaviour—she’s very young and impressionable. It’s unfair to attack her.
What is to blame, though, is the irresponsible “end-is-nigh” preachiness that has completely taken over discourse.
How far will this go? The ideas being espoused by the climate cult have lost much of their civility, and it’s beginning to become evident that it could even turn macabre.
Take for example the Swedish researcher who promoted cannibalism as a solution to climate change in a talk titled “Can You Imagine Eating Human Flesh?”
The behavioural scientist and marketing strategist Magnus Soderlund actually attempted to break down the “ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh,” referring to those taboos as “conservative,” and states that people’s resistance to it as a “problem that could be overcome.”
We’ve descended into discourse that calls for birth strikes, abortion to curb population, and on the farthest end of the spectrum, the consumption of human flesh, all to save the environment. If the “human flesh” speaker seems unfairly lumped in with the DNC, then at least acknowledge that outlets like The Guardian are promoting the idea of eating mealworm-based substitutions.
There’s a way to have productive conversations about the environment. The way that this conversation has been hijacked is dangerous, and we must collectively find a better way to do so.
With that said, perhaps we should all be paying more attention to Universal Basic Income advocate Andrew Yang who focused the conversation on actual answers, regarding the economy and the politics of climate change.
In his responses, Yang highlighted all of the problems with our system, and offered realistic solutions to them. He did not demonize, he did not hyperbolize, but he instead gave a cool-headed, rational outlook on the issue that provided relief, knowing that these issues are not the unconquerable bogeyman that the rest made it out to be.
Because at this rate, it’s only a matter of time that some nutjob suggests suicide as a measure to reduce carbon emissions.
According to a poll conducted by Forum, 58 percent of Canadians have a positive view of Socialism, while around 40 percent have a negative view.
In the United States, by contrast, 43 percent of Americans hold a positive view of Socialism according to Gallup.
The poll conducted by Forum surveyed 1,733 Canadians.
According to the Toronto Star, those most favourable towards the ideology were mostly between the ages of 18-44, women, highly educated, earning between $40,000 to $80,000, and living in the Atlantic Provinces.
By contrast, those who held negative views were mostly 45 and older, men, poorly educated, lowest earners, people earning between $80,000 to $100,000, and residents of Alberta.
NDP voters had the highest favorability towards Socialism, along with the Liberals while Conservatives were the most unwelcoming towards the idea.
Surprisingly, 58 percent of Canadians also hold positive opinions about Capitalism, while those that despise it poll at around a staggering 40%. In the US, this number stands at 67 percent and 33 percent respectively.
Dr. Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research, said that overall, Canadian voters hold a positive view of both socialism and capitalism, but see s
“Both Canadians and Americans alike see capitalism favourably,” he said. “While Canadian support for socialism and capitalism are divided along party lines, it is not nearly as drastic as shown in the United States.”
The results also don’t come as much of a surprise as former Socialist politician and NDP leader Tommy Douglas has previously been crowned the “Greatest Canadian” ever.
With US Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders calling himself a “Democratic Socialist,” the term “socialism” has become ill-defined as of recently.
Many experts suggest that Bernie is, in fact, a social democrat (supporters of capitalism with strong unions and welfare nets) and not a democratic socialist (supporters of democratic control over the means of production in a non-capitalist economic framework).
The term “socialism” has taken America by storm as Bernie calls his social democratic policies “democratic socialism” and Republicans further extrapolate this term to the problems with countries like Venezuela.
Democrats such as John Hickenlooper and John Delaney ran for the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders and others. Hickenlooper has dropped out to pursue a Senate seat instead.