Categories
Category: You have to be kidding, right!?!
Art: Brad Walker
Shortly before his untimely death, I had the chance to interview rebel political analyst and cultural commentator, Andrew Breitbart. We were talking about American exceptionalism and lamenting Hollywood’s antagonism toward our Second Amendment, when Andrew said, “We gave Hollywood up without a fight and we may never get it back.”
His statement has been painfully prescient.
Now, you’ll never recognize my name or face, but I’ve had the chance to shoot movies and documentaries all over the world. I’ve worked on one of the few films reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court that wasn’t pornography. I’ve even had the honor of sharing a scene or two with some pretty amazing actors, such as Roma Downey and Anthony Hopkins. Though I’m more D-list than A-list, I’ve prowled sets, pulled cable, forgotten lines, been to premieres and said “action!” enough times to have an understanding of “the biz.”
Still, the big career I might have had in mainstream Hollywood was stunted by some of my conservative movie credits. I’ve lost jobs and have been passed over because I didn’t adhere to the left-of-center views of so many in Tinseltown.
Prior to entering Hollywood, I grew up in a culture where guns, and the stories that include them, were a part of everyday life. Stories told by my father, grandfather and uncles fueled my intense interest in the outdoors, fishing and hunting. Stories like the time Uncle Ted went goose hunting with Uncle James, who instructed him to “shoot the farthest goose first. Then, shoot one close in front before they fly overhead. And, finally, turn around and shoot a third as the flock flies away.” When the geese came in, that’s exactly how it played out, with the first goose crashing dead right at Uncle Ted’s feet just as he shot the third. Or the time Grampa killed a bull elk on Diamond Mountain and when they went to the downed bull, they found it behind an aspen stump that had a bullet hole right through it. The “magic bullet” had gone through the aspen before it went through the elk.
I begged to re-hear those stories every time my family got together for a reunion, visited the cemetery on Decoration Day or gathered to hunt. Soon, I was part of those stories, too.
Above is Jennifer Lopez. She has mostly avoided talking about Second Amendment issues, but when she was asked about gun control, she said, “I do feel like entertainment is a separate thing.” Photo: Lionsgate/Alamy
On opening day of the deer hunt, when I was six years old, my dad, uncles and cousins gathered at Gramma’s house long before dawn. After breakfast and a prayer, Gramma sent us off with parched corn and the promise of the world’s best cinnamon rolls upon our return. We piled into our old navy-blue Volkswagen Squareback and bounced our way over the dirt roads into a sunrise of hope and wonder. That day, as I knelt by his side, Dad made a broadside shot on a running muley at well over 200 yards with a Remington 03-A3 and iron sights—a single shot that will live in my mind forever. Dad said he didn’t know who was more surprised, him or the deer. After the hunt, we crowded into the detached garage under a single bare bulb as Uncle James worked his magic with a blade and butcher paper. Stories were shared, relationships cemented, the past relived and the future secured. I can still smell the earthy almond husks in a nearby wooden bushel basket and machine oil from the bolt bucket.
With the influence these stories had on me, I guess it was natural that a “gun story” in a movie would send me down the filmmaking path.
In the fall of 1989, two months before the Berlin Wall came down, I was in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport surrounded by five Soviet soldiers pointing AK-47s at me. I spoke no Russian. They spoke no English. I was headed to Siberia to give a series of lectures/classes on America (how that came about is another story).
I had the notion that I could best illustrate my lectures through movies, TV shows and homemade videos. I carried a duffle bag packed with close to 100 full-run feature films, popular TV shows and material I’d shot myself, all on VHS (yes, I’m that old). Back then, Soviet law allowed an individual to transport 10 VHS tapes into the USSR—ten blank tapes. Of this fact, I was unaware.
As the stone-faced customs official searched that duffle bag, I became more nervous. Among the various titles was Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo III, in which he battles the Russians in Afghanistan. My intent was to show the students how American media portrayed the Soviet system.
So this is how I end up in the Gulag, I thought.
I held my breath as the guards got to Rambo. One of them quickly reached for the movie, and a grin spread across his face. He flexed his muscles and in his heavy Russian accent exclaimed, “Rahm-bo! Rocky!! Eez beeg, no? Rahm-bo!”
Rather than shooting me on the spot, he laughed! A moment later, he grabbed True Grit with a stoic John Wayne on the box art. “Jon Vayne! Jon Vayne eez cowboyee! Jon Vayne!” A moment earlier, I had honestly feared for my life. Now, we were all just movie fans (albeit some of the movie fans were still pointing AKs at me). There, in the heart of the “Evil Empire,” I saw, up close and personal, how movies created a bridge between the world’s two feuding superpowers at a time when the Cold War was in full swing. That power of shared storytelling—to bring people together in a shared experience—was why I dove headfirst into making movies.
Storytelling is not only how we entertain each other, memorialize great deeds and teach history, but it is also how the cultural needle is moved. While always a safe place for rebels, outsiders and unique perspectives, historically, Hollywood told stories that tended to reinforce traditional values, institutions and culture. Today, however, it’s a badge of honor for storytellers to challenge, mock and tear down the things that have provided societal stability. They consider themselves more sophisticated, intelligent and enlightened than those of us in fly-over country.
Above is Chris Pratt, whom Business Insider called a “gun collector.” Photo: Alamy
As much as those enlightened elites paint themselves as anti-gun, it is more than ironic that many of the movie industry’s key storytelling archetypes and genres are, in fact, pro-gun. It is a strange Jekyll-and-Hyde contradiction. In the public sphere, in their social media and in front of press cameras, they are constantly virtue-signaling the evils of guns. But, in a glaring disconnect, the stories they tell actually demonstrate that guns are good. And, in the process, they make a lot of money.
Hollywood anti-Second Amendment celebrities would cringe if they really thought about this. Like those tapes picked up by that Soviet soldier, movies like John Wick, The Matrix, Taken, Star Wars, Rambo, Aliens, The Terminator and Avatar venerate protagonists using guns to defend the weak, restore justice and punish evil. You can also pick any Western and you’ll see it.
Likewise, we’ve all watched movies with a battered and abused female protagonist “the system” fails to protect. How does this sympathetic victim overcome the stronger, more powerful, evil opponent? The storytellers don’t send a social worker; they don’t give the murderous bad guy sensitivity training; they don’t organize a protest. No. They give her a gun!
And while they tell these fictional stories all the time, and make themselves rich doing it, Hollywood is blind to the many true-life defensive gun uses that occur daily all around us.
This blindness implies that Hollywood is ignorant. But they’re not—this is merely a willful blindness. Through their public statements, Hollywood and the mainstream media show their true Jekyll activist side. Their carefully crafted narratives advocate that people who use guns (defensively or otherwise) are a dangerous minority. But, though they claim that law-abiding gun owners, like you and me, are a threat to democracy, they also promote the idea that protagonists from Nobody and Peppermint are heroes.
This is only one aspect of Hollywood’s storytelling shortcomings. Andrew Breitbart didn’t foresee that Hollywood might overplay its hand.
Above is Keanu Reeves, an actor whose videos training at shooting ranges have gone viral. Photo: Lionsgate/Alamy
Recent debacles with Batgirl, The Rings of Power, The Little Mermaid, The Witcher and Willow demonstrate how Hollywood’s commitment to ideology over story is beginning to backfire. Hollywood must be starting to realize they’ve sacrificed good storytelling for their woke politics. But then, many in Hollywood still blame everyone but themselves for their failures.
The result? Look no further than the once-unbeatable Disney, whose stock fell precipitously at the end of 2022, losing $123 billion. Their string of box-office bombs was capped off by having to pull Strange World from theaters early. It’s easy to make a case that their content choices are killing them.
Maybe Andrew Breitbart was right. Maybe we did give up Hollywood. So what? We don’t need them.
And it’s not like Hollywood wasn’t warned. The entertainment world was momentarily stunned by Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, nearly two decades ago. There is no better example of a Hollywood face-plant. Nobody wanted to make it, but Gibson had the resume to make it happen. Released in 2004 and re-released a year later in a different cut, the film has made more than $700 million on a budget of $30 million. It was the number three moneymaker in 2004. Hollywood either failed to recognize or intentionally ignored this under-served market hungry for content.
Luckily, we don’t have to wait for Hollywood to feed that hungry market. Once upon a time, making a good movie required millions of dollars (if not tens of millions), trailers full of expensive gear, and a crew of dozens. These days, with readily available digital technology, you don’t need the history and track record of Mel Gibson to get something done. Today’s storytellers can create audience-moving, award-winning, money-making films with gear you could fit in a backpack. While Hollywood didn’t get the memo, others did.
The folks behind God’s Not Dead got it right telling a story that didn’t offend its target audience. The reward? A franchise worth more than $100 million from an initial budget of about $2 million.
But it’s not just overtly conservative story tellers with religious content who are finding success. An example that stands out is Taylor Sheridan. I have no idea what Sheridan’s politics are (isn’t that refreshing?), but his storytelling is first-rate and doesn’t ostracize those of us who cherish their freedom. Movies like Sicario, Hell or High Water and Wind River and series like Yellowstone and 1883 just tell good stories. And, unsurprisingly, guns feature prominently in everything Sheridan does.
A familiar, old Hollywood hand, Clint Eastwood, has been making these kinds of films and winning Academy Awards for nearly 70 years.
The Daily Wire sees this potential and is confronting Hollywood head-on. One notable move was engaging Gina Carano after Disney gave itself a black eye in firing her from The Mandalorian. DW recently released Terror on the Prairie starring Carano and Nick Searcy. Daily Wire’s Run, Hide, Fight is their better film. Isabel May’s performance alone is worth the watch. They’ve also announced a $100 million commitment to children’s programming.
Perhaps the best example of the success that can be generated by a well-told “gun” story unburdened by enlightened elitism is this summer’s Top Gun: Maverick, a film with a protagonist we can root for, combined with a story free of ideological messaging.
The fact is, there are over 100 million of us in America that own guns and this number is growing, especially among women. And we crave good stories that include our culture the way we see and experience it. One hundred million people who have firsthand experience with firearms is a lot of cultural influencers.
So, yeah, it’s time for even more of our stories to be told. Stories that show relatable characters who also happen to be hunters. People facing life’s challenges, but who also shoot three-gun on the weekends. Protagonists who battle injustice, but also aren’t afraid of guns.
Maybe Andrew Breitbart was right. Maybe we did give up Hollywood. So what? We don’t need them. Just because Hollywood has a big megaphone doesn’t mean they have the only one. You have a megaphone. Pick it up, tell your story and shake up the market.
Impressive but what is your pattern like afterward? Asking for a friend Grumpy
The law of inverse or unintended consequences refers to outcomes that are the reverse of the planned or expected results. As described in another context, “the law of unintended consequences could create a perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended and ultimately making the problem worse.”
Back in 2015, Pete Holmes, the then City Attorney, wrote about Seattle’s “inventive” new way to address violent crime. “In a Seattle summer marred by random gunfire, the City Council unanimously approved, and Mayor Ed Murray signed, the ordinance that, come January [2016], will levy a $25 tax on businesses for each firearm sold at retail within City limits to provide a sustained local revenue source for research and prevention programs.
In addition, the City will impose a 2-cent tax for every round of .22 caliber ammunition sold and a 5-cent tax for every other round of ammunition sold.” Describing this so-called “common sense step designed to reduce gun violence,” Holmes said, “This City acted to control its own destiny.”
At the time the ordinance was passed, the City Budget Office estimated that the gun tax would generate revenue of “between $300,000 and $500,000 a year.”
Seattle Police Department data on crime shows there were 3,830 violent crime incidents in 2015, of which 26 were homicides. Violent crime incidents have increased each year since, reaching 5,630 in 2022 (including 52 homicides). The department’s most recent annual report reveals that Seattle’s overall violent crime rate reached a 15-year high in 2022, with homicides up by 24% and aggravated assaults (including shots fired and non-fatal shootings) “continu[ing] to be the highest reported in the last 10 years.”
Analyzing the numbers for shootings and shots fired specifically, police data for 2015 indicates there were 54 “shots fired” incidents, 16 shootings (nonfatal) and no shooting fatalities. By 2022, this had climbed to 79 “shots fired” incidents, 34 non-fatal shootings, and six “fatal injury” shootings. So far, 2023 looks to be at least as violent, with 84 “shots fired” incidents, 15 non-fatal injury shootings, and four fatalities already, a scant three months into the year.
Residents who may have looked to console themselves with what, by now, was supposed to be a multi-million dollar stash of cash generated by the gun tax for prevention programs were in for another rude shock. According to one source, the first full year of gun tax collection yielded just $103,766, with $93,220 collected for 2017, $77,518 in 2018, and $85,352 in 2019 – a four-year total that failed to reach the midpoint, even, of the city’s predicted revenue for a single year.
To get the real financial impact of the gun tax, though, Seattle’s extreme overestimates have to be viewed in the larger context of actual lost revenues. At the time the gun tax was proposed, the proprietor of one of Seattle’s gun stores described what he called the city’s “grossly unsound” reasoning and revenue projections. Seattle, he added, had only two dedicated gun stores, plus a few big box sporting goods stores and pawnshops, but had “plenty more” located a short way out of the city. Rather than “just tighten the belt and hand over the money,” consumers would shop elsewhere and “Seattle gun stores would simply go out of business.”
The result? No gun tax income and the city would lose the sales tax, other revenue and jobs the businesses had been generating until then. In his case – because he moved his business to the suburbs outside Seattle when the gun tax was passed – Seattle lost close to $64,000 in sales taxes that his business paid in his new location in 2017.
Another large gun retailer, the owner of Seattle’s Outdoor Emporium, was interviewed in late 2016 and blamed the gun tax for his “$2 million hit” in lost sales, a 32% drop in his customer count, and an estimated $600,000 loss of potential sales tax due to his plummeting sales.
If these figures are accurate, Seattle accomplished the unbelievable financial equivalent of cutting off its nose to spite its face by collecting, in 2016, a little over $100K in gun tax revenue but losing at least seven times as much in sales tax dollars alone. Driving these figures even further into the red, in 2017 the city reportedly spent more on defending a failed lawsuit on the tax (over its refusal to disclose the 2016 revenue collected) than it obtained that year in total gun tax income.
It’s not just a case of the usual wonky progressive math. Civic politicians have hurt city taxpayers, to be sure, but taking “control” of the city’s destiny with this “inventive” ordinance has correlated with violent crime rates reaching record highs. The same ordinance has created an uncompetitive business climate for gun retailers, so residents who need the means to protect themselves and their families from the burgeoning crime wave are forced to go outside Seattle. Even apart from the gigantic question mark on how the gun tax revenues have been spent and to what end, it’s difficult to interpret these outcomes as anything other than a complete and dismal failure.
From The NRA
- North Korean officials have searched house-to-house in the city, sources claim
- The assault rifle ammunition was discovered missing on March 7
North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un has put an entire city under lockdown after 653 bullets went missing during a military withdrawal, it has been claimed.
The dictator’s officials have searched house-to-house in the city of Hyesan, which has a population of around 200,000 people, for the ammunition, two sources told Radio Free Asia.
‘The city… will remain on lockdown until all 653 bullets are found,’ a resident of the northern province of Ryanggang, where Hyesan is located, anonymously told RFA’s Korean Service.
The assault rifle ammunition was discovered missing on March 7, when soldiers with the Korean People’s Army 7th Corps were pulling back from the area surrounding the city, which lies on the border with China.
They had been deployed there in 2020 to enforce the border closure at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘They withdrew completely between February 25 and March 10, but an extensive investigation is underway because of a loss of bullets during the evacuation process,’ the Ryanggang resident said.
When it happened, the soldiers did not initially report it but tried to find the missing bullets themselves, according to the source.
‘But when the missing bullets could not be found, they notified the residents and began a rigorous search,’ he said.
The police and military launched an investigation, sealed off the whole city, and began searching house to house, the source said.
‘Those who have seen or picked up any number of bullets are required to report them as soon as possible.’
Those who fail to report any bullets they found could be punished, the source said.
‘There have been no clues even after ten days have passed since this investigation began,’ the source said.
Residents had been looking forward to the army’s withdrawal from the area, but during the investigation they will have even less freedom of movement, a Ryanggang province official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, told RFA.
‘Last week, orders were issued to factories, farms, social groups and neighbourhood watch units in the province to actively cooperate with the ammunition-related investigation,’ the official said, adding that when the bullets were not recovered after ten days, the investigating authorities resorted to lying to spread fear among the public.
‘They tried to put pressure on the residents by bluffing that the withdrawal was a manoeuvre related to the safety of the Supreme Dignity from reactionary forces,’ the official said, using an honorific to refer to the country’s leader.
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks to China’s President Xi Jinping during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) leaders’ summit in Samarkand on September 16, 2022. (Sergei Bobylov/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)
March 20, 2023Updated: March 20, 2023
Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin is aimed at furthering the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) designs against the United States, according to analysts.
Xi’s March 20 to March 23 visit to Moscow is his first to the country since Putin’s February 2022 invasion and comes on the heels of Beijing’s brokering a resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Xi and Putin declared a “no limits” partnership, and ties between the two countries have only deepened since then.
The meeting was announced on Friday, incidentally not long after the International Court of Justice issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes.
The timing of the visit is critical for both Xi and Putin, experts say.
“I think that Beijing—like most of the rest of the world—is worried that the conflict might escalate to nuclear warfare that would harm their own plans as much as anyone else,” said Brandon Weichert, a U.S.-based geopolitical analyst and author of the book “Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower.”
“At the same time, though, Beijing doesn’t mind seeing their two biggest competitors, Russia and the U.S., bleeding each other in Europe while China has free reign in the Indo-Pacific,” he told The Epoch Times.
Timing
The meeting comes as Russia slowly makes advances in its monthslong operation to capture the eastern Ukraine city of Bakhmut. The bloody battle has led to massive losses on both sides, especially the Russians.
Madhav Nalapat, a strategic affairs analyst and vice chair of the India-based Manipal Advanced Research Group said that Xi and Putin are meeting at a time when the war in Ukraine is entering a stage where it can either end conclusively or can drag out into a stalemate.
“Putin is under pressure from his commanders to unleash the full fury of Russian weapons against Ukraine rather than have the war get prolonged,” Nalapat told The Epoch Times. “Xi clearly wants to know whether Putin will go all out or continue with the present tactics.”
To Frank Lehberger, a Germany-based Sinologist, Xi and Putin’s “hasty arrangement” and secret get together” on Monday is because the Russian military is on the “brink of collapse” in Ukraine.
“Xi Jinping, who is since last week the sole autocrat of China, is anxious not to let this happen, because a military rout of Russian armies in Ukraine would be the end of Putin’s autocratic and anti-Western regime of Russia,” Lehberger told The Epoch Times in an email.
The Russian army has lost nearly 200,000 soldiers in the war, according to Western officials, and at least 500,000 Russians have fled the country since the war started. Lehberger said that Russian elites and nationalist hardliners are angry with Putin and hold him responsible for the situation, wanting an end to Putin’s dream to recreate a Russian empire in Europe.
“Putin desperately needs Xi to come now and pledge his help, or it will be too late for Putin and his dreams of an autocratic empire,” said Lehberger.
“Xi knows all this, and he also desperately needs Russia to fight on ….not only against Ukrainians but by association against the entire democratic West or NATO, which are the CCP’s existential enemies.”
Nalapat said that Russia losing a war to Ukraine would weaken China’s position significantly in the international order and the timing of the meeting is mindful of that.
Lethal Arms for Russia
There has been rising apprehension about China supplying military assistance to Russia. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said last month that China is already providing “non-lethal” weapons to Russia during the war and is considering supplying lethal ones. Beijing denies these claims.
While much has been made of Xi’s purported role as peacemaker in the conflict, experts said that this is just a smokescreen, pointing to Beijing’s supply of “dual-use” equipment to Moscow that aids its military efforts.
Weichert said that China has long been providing “vital support and supplies” to Russia.
“The Biden administration knows full well that there are Chinese ‘technicians’ working alongside Wagner Group units in Bakhmut, helping them to maintain the drone fleets that Chinese drone makers have sold to the Russians,” he said, referring to the private mercenary group.
The Wagner Group purchased more than 2,500 Chinese drones in a deal between the mercenary group and Russian and Chinese intelligence, British media outlet Daily Mirror reported, citing a UK intelligence report.
Nalapat said that misleading the enemy is a “standard operating procedure” for the CCP, noting that the regime is supplying arms to Russia through discrete channels.
“Do you believe that the flood of weapons, many sophisticated, coming to Russia from North Korea and Iran have all been made in those two countries?” he said.
According to a recent Politico report citing customs data, Chinese firms have exported 1,000 assault rifles and other equipment to Moscow that could be used in the conflict.
In June 2022, for example, Russian firm Tekhkrim imported rifles from China North Industries Group Corporation Limited, a large state-owned defense contractor. The data also showed that Russian companies received 12 shipments of drone parts and over 12 tons of body armor from China via Turkey in late 2022.
In response to this report, White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told The Epoch Times that the administration couldn’t confirm that China has in fact provided lethal aid to Russia.
Lehberger said that “All these activities are in contravention of current international sanctions,” adding that the reported efforts are only the tip of the iceberg.
In addition to Iran and North Korea, China is also sending arms to Russia through other countries like Myanmar, Serbia, Turkey, and Russia’s staunch ally in Europe, Belarus, according to Lehberger.
After his summit with Putin, Xi will talk via satellite link to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the first time since the invasion. Lehberger termed this as Xi’s “make-believe peace mission.”
According to the expert, Xi will aim at a temporary cease-fire to earn recovery time for Putin’s depleted army and Russia will “at a later time” attack Ukraine more fiercely.
Lehberger said that the CCP will continue to supply arms to Russia for at least another two years, because he believes that Xi has plans to take over Taiwan in 2025 and would thus wish to use prolonged Ukraine-Russian conflict to stun or weaken the United States and other Western powers.
China’s Economic Stake
Experts said that China has long-term economic agendas vis-a-vis the Russia-Ukraine war and its economic goals over the next decades are linked with Beijing’s subjugation of the Russian economy.
“Russia is squarely in the camp of China’s new empire; the vast Russian wilderness will become protein for which the dragon can feed on as it rises over the next decade, and Putin will become a powerful vassal prince under Xi Jinping,” said Weichert, adding that fusing the Chinese and Russian economies would be a major victory for Xi and for that, it would need Russia to be ensnared in a protracted conflict with Ukraine.
Nalapat said that Russia has become China’s most important supplier of industrial raw materials at discounted prices. The two countries want to work together to topple the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.
“A weakened U.S. dollar would in their view boost their own currencies, especially the RMB [Chinese yuan]. For some time, much of U.S. deficit funding has come from increases in overseas purchases of USD as a reserve currency, and a dollar reset would significantly crimp the ability to spend of the U.S. government,” he said.
Xi wants the United States to not only be weakened but also be deprived of reliable and functioning allies within Europe, according to Lehberger who sees the Ukraine war as vital to Beijing’s economic game plan against Washington.
“A weak E.U. will then be earmarked to become an economic dependency of China,” Lehberger said.