‘Sound of Freedom’ Touched a Nerve on the Left: Not Just One, but Many

by Cauf Skiviers, Cultural Inappropriation, ©2023

(Jul. 9, 2023) — Spoiler alert: This article contains mild spoilers about the movie ‘Sound of Freedom’ that won’t interfere with your ability to enjoy it.

I like Jim Caviezel, even before his classic performance in The Passion of the Christ, he was brilliant as Edmond Dantès in The Count of Monte Cristo. I listen to a number of podcasts, many just as background noise. So, of course, I was aware that Caviezel was making the rounds to promote his latest movie, Sound of Freedom. I confess I wasn’t paying too much attention as the movie first struck me as some sort of ‘right-wing Taken,’ which is not my cup of tea. Anyway, I felt like I would eventually watch it, maybe one of these days.

But that has quickly changed, and what really sold me on the movie was a hit piece disguised as a review by the left-wing propaganda tabloid, The Guardian. The headline reads, “Sound of Freedom: The QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America.” The article sent me down a stomach-churning rabbit hole of lunatic conspiracy theories that permeate the Left these days. After that, I knew I should watch the movie as soon as possible because it was touching the right nerves in the wrong people.

It is Wrong to Normalise the Sexualisation of Children

In the early scenes of the movie, a pre-teen girl is enticed into what appears to be a talent audition. The true intention quickly became evident as she is encouraged to engage in suggestive poses, heavily adorned with lipstick, for a stranger’s camera. The film skillfully captures the perspective of the child, who innocently sees it as no different from playing with her mother’s makeup or trying on clothes. Her father drove her there, unaware of the danger. When he returned, he discovered that his daughter had disappeared, plunging him into every parent’s worst nightmare.

So the first message is clear: the sexualisation of children is wrong. It’s what opens the door to the demonic can of worms that is child trafficking.

Now, if I were in the business of selling gender transition and abortion to minors, I too would be concerned with the sexualisation of kids being cast as a negative thing. Much to the contrary, I would praise it and normalise it. So a piece like the one below, from another left-wing conspiracy-peddling tabloid, Rolling Stone, should give you a clue of what they are going for:

It may be tempting to dismiss any concerns by saying, “It’s just a piece of fiction.” But, when the same Rolling Stone publishes a hit piece titled “‘Sound Of Freedom’ Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms,” it becomes clear that something is odd. In that hit piece, written by Miles Klee, there are more than a few eyebrow-raising Freudian slips. Klee confesses,

“At times, I had the uncomfortable sense that I might be arrested myself just for sitting through it.”

That’s a weird thought to have when watching a movie like Sound of Freedom. He then proceeds to condemn the treatment given to a sex predator by the protagonist, saying,

“…arrest him again? […] Doesn’t matter as long as the drooling creep with requisite glasses and pervert mustache gets his head slammed against a table once more.”

It’s an odd display of empathy, given the abundance of victims to empathise with onscreen. I’m not implying that Klee has any inclinations himself; it’s more of a manifestation of the Left’s pathological — even suicidal — fascination with the wicked. It’s the ‘call of the void’ in its worst form.

Klee advises us not to be overwhelmed by the victims of child sex trafficking depicted in the movie, suggesting that “there is visible suffering all around us in America. There are the poor and unhoused, people brutalized or killed by police… mass shootings, lack of healthcare, climate disasters. And yet, over and over, the far right turns to these sordid fantasies about godless monsters hurting children.“

Although Sound of Freedom is a work of fiction, it is based on a true story. Nevertheless, Miles Klee wants us to look the other way. While he sympathises with sexual predators, The Guardian suggests that child trafficking could be an excuse for cracking jokes, warning that “those hoping for a few detached laughs […] will be bored by the straight face donned for the duration of the run time.” Perhaps they were hoping for jokes that could humanise and normalise child trafficking? In that sense, the movie becomes a wasted opportunity.

Exposing the Failure of Leftist Policies

Speaking of Freudian slips and the connection between the normalisation of the sexualisation of children and the abortion industry, The Guardian gives us a glimpse into how this works in practice. The tabloid implies that “Sound of Freedom pretends to be a real movie, like a ‘pregnancy crisis center’ masquerading as a bona fide health clinic”. It seems that the connection between being pro-abortion and promoting the sexualisation of children is not lost on the Left. They just have a different outlook on it.

But that’s not all, The Guardian proceeds to criticise the Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R), the rescue organization depicted in the movie, labeling it as “arrogant, unethical, and illegal” according to the ‘authorities.’ But which authorities are they referring to? Upon further investigation, the authority in question turns out to be Anne Gallagher, who presents herself as a “lawyer and international authority on human rights and gender issues.” It is worth noting that it appears she has never rescued a single soul in her life. She is simply an interested party with a diploma claiming expertise in matters she has no experience with. A bureaucrat.

Now, I understand why one might deem O.U.R. activities as illegal, or borderline legal, that’s a fair criticism. But, calling it unethical?! What’s unethical about rescuing children at peril?

When it is all said and done, while Anne Gallagher raises funds and rubs shoulders with the potentially next Jeffrey Epstein to ensure the financial survival of her faux career, children continue to suffer abuse. On the other hand, O.U.R operatives risk their lives to stop child trafficking. It is evident which of these activities falls under the ‘unethical’ category.

Jumping from air-conditioned room to air-conditioned room, from Ivory Tower to Ivory Tower, Gallagher believes that her expertise in collecting checks from politically-driven NGOs translates into some sort of real-life expertise in fighting child trafficking. In reality, her work is, at best, pure rhetorical virtue-signaling. She will never receive a thank you from a scared child just released from sex slavery, but I’m sure she has multiple awards given by organisations that exist solely to give awards to people like her. At worst, she stands in the way and helps traffickers get away with their crimes.

In an article on The Huffington Post, Gallagher implies that O.U.R is in cahoots with local law enforcement in the third world, suggesting complicity with the sex trafficking industry. She insinuates that people involved in releasing children from sex slavery are doing so to gain “international kudos” for themselves. Is this another Freudian slip?

Read the rest here.