The Usual Suspects Slag "The Sound Of Freedom"

These People Will Defend The Worst Of Humanity For Woke Points

Whenever Dinesh D’Souza releases a new film, journalists seem to enter into a sort of battle mode.

D’Souza's unapologetic conservative views spark activism among most reporters. However, his latest film, "Sound of Freedom," which has received praise from conservatives, departs significantly from his usual style.

The film is a gripping account based on true events, centering around Tim Ballard (played by Jim Caviezel), a dedicated Homeland Security agent with the crucial mission of bringing pedophiles to justice. Although he tirelessly fights against this vile crime, it's heartbreaking that he cannot rescue all the innocent children who fall victim to sex trafficking, an appalling global issue.

Everything changes when Tim discovers that a sinister network has abducted a brother and sister. Driven by compassion and determination, he decides to jeopardize his career and even his life to rescue these children from their unimaginably cruel existence.

"Sound of Freedom" deliberately avoids taking any explicit political positions, though it briefly references God, it should not be classified as a "faith-based" thriller. Nevertheless, the film's relevance, emotional impact, and its status as a must-see experience have resonated strongly with audiences.

The movie has garnered a respectable 76 percent "Fresh" rating from professional critics on RottenTomatoes.com, underscoring its quality and appeal.

However, certain media outlets have displayed unprofessional and exaggerated reactions to the film. For instance, The Guardian published a column that can only be described as a biased and vehement attack, titled "Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America."

Unfortunately, the situation only deteriorates further from there.

”The trafficking follows no motivation more elaborate than the servicing of rich predators, eliding all talk of body-part black markets and the precious organic biochemical of adrenochrome harvested as a Satanic key to eternal life. The first rule of QAnon: you don’t talk about QAnon where the normals can hear you.”

Rolling Stone, a magazine known for its aversion to free speech, further intensified the hysteria surrounding the film by relentlessly mocking its audience. Their actions displayed a disappointing lack of journalistic integrity and fairness.

The headline chosen by Rolling Stone, "‘Sound Of Freedom’ Is a Superhero Movie for Dads With Brainworms," reveals a clear attempt to provoke and ridicule the film.

The article suggests that "Sound of Freedom," a movie with elements touching on the QAnon conspiracy, exploits the topic of child-trafficking to appeal to a specific demographic, specifically conspiracy-addled boomers.

While the film does depict the fact-based issue of child trafficking, its boosters see it as a multi-faceted production that resonates with various themes: Jim Caviezel's return to the screen in a biopic about Tim Ballard, a devout Catholic allegedly blacklisted by the entertainment industry; a call to action against sexual predators on a global scale; and a perceived attack on the "woke" Hollywood, which the film's supporters see as a den of iniquity and a producer of wealthy deviants portrayed as villains in the story.

It is disheartening to witness the immense effort put into attacking a film that sheds light on the real and horrifying issue of child sex trafficking, an actual problem causing unspeakable suffering.

One such example is The Washington Post's criticism of the film, where they targeted its star, Jim Caviezel, and suggested connections to unfounded theories about global elites engaging in unimaginable acts with kidnapped children, even going so far as to imply a link to the QAnon movement.

Interestingly, despite being a low-budget production, "Sound of Freedom" nearly reached the top spot at the box office on July 4th, indicating its resonance with the public.

Moreover, there are instances where individuals of significant influence have allegedly established networks dedicated to supplying underage sex slaves for the pleasure of the global elite, yet when these individuals die under mysterious circumstances, the mainstream media often chooses to ignore or downplay such events.

These are unfortunate examples of how some media outlets and critics are more focused on discrediting the film and its connections than acknowledging the severity of the issue it addresses.

It's regrettable to see that some critics, like liberal critic Roger Moore, allowed personal biases to cloud his judgment when reviewing "Sound of Freedom." Moore's strong dislike for the film's star, Jim Caviezel, due to his conservative Christian beliefs, led him to resort to personal attacks on the actor throughout his review.

Instead of offering a fair and objective assessment of the film's merits, Moore's review turned into a platform to attack Caviezel on a personal level. This behavior undermines the integrity of film criticism and detracts from the crucial subject matter of the movie – child sex trafficking.

The inconsistency in media outlets' response to different films is concerning. While some outlets attacked "Sound of Freedom" for addressing the grave issue of child sex trafficking, they, at the same time, praised the Netflix movie "Cuties," which depicted young girls in sexualized outfits dancing in a provocative manner.

It amazes me how frequently these people tell on themselves. First praising/defending that "Cuties" movie, defending Balenciaga after their extremely creepy ads, the entire "trans kid" nonsense, being fine with children being exposed to nasty stuff at Pride, and now lashing out about a movie about rescuing children from the horrors of human trafficking.

Pedophiles and child traffickers are becoming way too comfortable these days. They need to start living in fear again.