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.
The interim President of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, visited Canada today and sat down with Prime Minister Trudeau. He is touring internationally to gain support from other countries and take the upper hand over Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s current socialist party leader.
Guaido’s trip outside of Venezuela has not been permitted by the country’s Supreme Court, who sides with Maduro. As one of the countries supporting Guaido’s efforts to take power, Prime Minister Trudeau and senior cabinet ministers will be meeting with him today.
In a statement, Trudeau said, “I commend Interim President Guaido for the courage and leadership he has shown in his efforts to return democracy to Venezuela, and I offer Canada’s continued support.”
Guaido and Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister took questions in Ottawa at 11:30 a.m. ET.
Over 50 countries acknowledge Guaido as the interim President, considering Maduro’s reelection to be illegitimate. Guaido is head of congress for the South American nation.
Sanctions have been imposed against some of Maduro’s government officials by Canada who is one of five nations who believe Maduro should be handled by the International Criminal Court.
Maduro still has the majority of control throughout Venezuela regardless of the support that Guaido has received from other countries.
So far Guaido has been to Paris, London, Madrid and stopped at the Davos Economic Forum.
The days leading up to the latest CNN Democratic debate were undoubtedly stressful for Bernie Sanders as two new bombshell allegations concerning his presidential campaign arose. The first story claimed Sanders once made sexist remarks to Elizabeth Warren in a private meeting, while the latest story reveals footage of a salaried Bernie 2020 organizer advocating for political violence and terroristic acts. For strange reasons, one story is getting much more attention than the other.
The shocking footage came from Project Veritas, an undercover journalism group that’s exposed corruption and bias at CNN on numerous occasions. Sanders was already in the network’s crosshairs after Warren’s claim, and pressing this would’ve perhaps changed the flow of the entire debate. But an ongoing grudge seems to be preventing CNN from entertaining PV’s story, even if it can be used to help them sabotage Sanders’ campaign.
On Monday, the CNN piece made its way to the top of the headlines when Warren alleged Sanders once made sexist remarks to her at a private meeting in 2018. According to Warren’s claim verified only by herself, Sanders said that he didn’t believe a woman could win the presidency. So on Tuesday, the moderators came loaded with several items for Sanders on the sexism allegations, but any concerns of his radical field organizer managed to elude the debate.
Earlier that day, the footage was published, which shows Kyle Jurek, an organizer for Sanders’ 2020 election campaign advocating for assaulting police officers, burning down cities, murdering ideological opponents, and supporting gulags, among other things. Jurek’s claims involve the Sanders campaign directly and predict responses that will follow would he lose the election.
“If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention, f*cking Milwaukee will burn,” he stated.
Jurek continues: “The cops are gonna be the ones that are getting f*cking beaten in Milwaukee.”
He goes on to explain how the United States, like Nazi Germany, will have to spend billions of dollars re-educating Trump supporters, or “Nazis” as he calls them. According to Jurek, that’s what Bernie’s free-tuition proposal is all about — re-education of “Nazis.”
“Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their f*cking people to not be nazis. Like, we’re probably going to have to do the same f*cking thing here.” Jurek tells the journalist.
He continues: “That’s kind of what Bernie’s whole f*cking like “hey, free education for everybody!” because we’re going to have to teach you to not be a f*cking nazi.”
The Sanders campaign has yet to comment on any of the claims made by the salaried staff member.
But none of that was of interest to CNN or any of the moderators that night. In fact, over a week later, the story has not been mentioned or covered once by the network. You’d think a network still repeatedly claiming to be unbiased would entertain stories from all walks of journalism, not just the sources they like personally. Instead, they’ve doubled down on the sexism allegations that they grilled Sanders with on stage.
“Why did you say that?” Sanders was asked about the comment.
He responded: “Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it.” followed by many reasons as to why the claims are invalid.
The moderator persisted: “Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?”
“That’s correct,” he said.
Moderator Abby Phillips then redirected the question at Warren as if everything Sanders had just said vanished into thin air. She asked: “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” to which she replied, “I disagreed.” The pivot was so strikingly unfair and one-sided that it sparked a wave of laughter in the room and a sense of disbelief as to what just happened. Many anticipated Sanders to be then grilled about the footage, but it never happened.
So what happens whenever an attempt to smear a politician is backed by claims so absurd and unfair? For one, the sexism allegations haven’t hurt Sanders at all. In fact, they seem to have helped him substantially. Shortly after, Sanders announced that in the two days following the debate, he’d received more than 200,000 contributions totalling nearly $4 million. CNN’s smear backfired—badly.
They could’ve easily used Project Veritas’s story to their advantage on top of the sexism allegations to erode at Sanders’ campaign as a whole, but pride got in the way, and it ricocheted back at the network. After all, giving a few extra sympathy points to Sanders by accident will always be more virtuous in their eyes than taking conservative newsgroups seriously—especially ones that have unearthed dirt amongst them. To them, it’s not about truth; it’s about constituents.
By acknowledging the Sanders story, they now legitimize every CNN story from Veritas after chalking the group off as an anti-media organization. That can’t happen. Acting like Veritas doesn’t exist is the only path forward for the network despite other mainstream networks running the story. It sure does make you wonder how massive a story from Project Veritas would have to be for CNN to run it and take the group seriously, if any.
Shocking new footage was released today by Project Veritas, showing the Bernie Sanders campaign calling the police on their journalist as he attempted to get a comment from a campaign director on their recently exposed radical staffers.
Victoria Felder, regional field director of the Sanders campaign, got in her car and drove off after a PV journalist requested comment on her recently exposed colleagues that were recorded promoting violence and communist propaganda. The campaign declined to speak to the PV journalist and called the police on him instead.
A police officer who’d spoken to members of the Sanders’ campaign approached the journalist in his car, where he then passed the message along for them. According to the officer, the campaign is standing by its radical staffers and will continue to decline comment.
“So, this is what they’re telling me, is that all of the people that they work with and for and stuff like that will have no comment. That’s what you’re going to get from them.” said the officer.
He continues: “It’s one of those things where they wish he hadn’t said that, but they’re still standing by him.”
One of the radical staffers, Martin Weissberger, is then spotted by the journalist and approached with questions on his extreme views and how they tie to the Sanders campaign.
“Hey Martin, do you have a comment on wanting to dissolve the federal government and have Bernie Sanders act as a director—an executive director?” the journalist asked.
Weissberger also declined to comment, got into his car, and drove off.
I’m no fan of Bernie Sanders.
The fact that he straight-up calls himself a socialist at least deserves credit for honesty, as most on the left won’t admit to it, but that doesn’t change the fact that socialism is an incredibly dangerous and destructive ideology.
That said, the way CNN has treated his candidacy is a disgrace.
In the last Democratic debate, CNN ran a story based on “sources” claiming that Sanders had told fellow Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren that “a woman couldn’t win.”
Bernie denied that claim repeatedly, and denied it again when he was asked about it at the debate. Yet, right after his denial, the CNN “moderator” asked Elizabeth Warren how she felt “when Bernie Sanders said a woman couldn’t win.”
CNN just flat-out ignored Sanders’ denial, choosing to side with one candidate against another and pretend that the unprovable claim of what Sanders supposedly said was somehow an iron-clad fact.
Additionally, CNN had been the network to push the story the most in the lead-up to the debate, making it seem like they were trying to keep it going to boost their own ratings, rather than actually just “report the news.”
The treatment of Sanders shows a clear anti-Bernie bias at CNN, and it’s reminiscent of the anti-Trump bias at the network.
Notably, while Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are far apart on the political spectrum, there is some overlap in their willingness to condemn the corrupt system, represent what millions of previously-ignored Americans want, and “tell it like it is.”
Of course, that terrifies the establishment, so they try to destroy outsider candidates like Trump and Bernie.
At this point, it’s difficult to even consider CNN a news network. Instead, it’s a tool for the establishment elites to try and build a narrative to take down anyone who challenges the established order, and defeat anyone who starts to gain traction among millions of people who are fed-up with a system that wasn’t working for them.
And while Fox News gets attacked for being an “opinion network” rather than a news network, Fox actually has a much clearer delineation between facts and opinion. It’s pretty obvious when you’re watching a hard news segment on Fox, and it’s pretty obvious when you’re watching opinion. But on CNN, they pretend the whole thing is simply “news,” masquerading their clear bias as “covering events.”
So, the anti-Bernie bias at CNN is really part of a larger problem with much of the establishment media. It’s not about news. It’s about serving the elites at the expense of everyone else.