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

When They Tell You 'Nothing to See Here,' You Know You Need to See It

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?

Gallagher claims that any reputable court would not hesitate to throw out a case that relies on the evidence obtained through an O.U.R-type raid due to the failure to meet “basic standards of supervision and accountability”. However, she fails to realise that it is human rights bureaucrats with no experience in the real world — like her — who set these arbitrary, lenient standards in the name of 'social justice.'

Another slip by Gallagher reveals that "the temptation to do something in the face of such villainy can be overwhelming." It seems she is glad she hasn't done anything at all, except for cashing in on those checks.

But does the Left genuinely want to put an end to human trafficking? The question is, admittedly, tongue-in-cheek, given that as The Guardian states "everyone agrees that child trafficking is indefensible." However, actually trying to stop it might be too harsh, as it would mean less money going to people like Gallagher and more to people like Tim Ballard, the head of O.U.R. Let's not kid ourselves—the same system that enables child sex trafficking overlaps with some of the purveyors of the Left's finest imports: drugs and illegal immigrants — who are, to a large extent, victims of human trafficking themselves.

Human trafficking is part of the supply chain that supports the Left's lifestyle — or political pipeline. They know that harming human trafficking would also harm themselves. Just look at Jeffrey Epstein's political donations for reference.

Skepticism For Me, Conspiracy Theory For You

Rolling Stone is extremely concerned that “generic ‘Save the Children’ campaigns proved gateways to far-right conspiracy theories.” So they, acting as a good leftist mouthpiece, are quick to connect Sound of Freedom with QAnon.

They express with certainty that 'deplorables' would view the events depicted as entirely literal. They’ve never demonstrated the same concern for people who believed untested COVID vaccines as 100% effective, the authenticity of the Steele Dossier, and the impending doom if we don't eat bugs to combat climate change.

Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's ‘fact checker’, lost an overwhelming amount of sleep over whether Donald Trump's claim that 10,000 children are smuggled into the United States for sex annually is accurate. But let's entertain the idea that it's not 10,000—let's say it's 1,000 or even just 1% of that, which is 100 children. Does that warrant reducing efforts to combat child sex trafficking? Is the real problem that people are too zealous about addressing this issue?

As for conspiracy theories, The Guardian has one of its own: “he [Ballard] claims [to have worked over a decade at the DHS] – the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard's employment history.” The Washington Post dismisses the idea that “a shadowy international cabal is kidnapping children.” They provide no evidence for this conclusion. If I wrote for an organisation whose owner famously had ties with Jeffrey Epstein, I would refrain from pushing that talking point. For ethical reasons, if anything else.

The Movie Is Great And The Public Noticed It

In a year when Disney reported $900 million in losses due to woke box-office bombs like The Little Mermaid and Lightyear, it must sting when an independent film like Sound of Freedom turns out to be a success.

Originally produced by 20th Century Studios, the movie was put on hold by Disney after an acquisition in 2019. Disney executives better justify their decision to bury the movie on the basis that denouncing the sexualisation of children is bad for their business. After all, when Sound of Freedom outperforms another Disney woke box-office bomb like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, it would be highly unprofessional for them to claim they underestimated the commercial appeal of Sound of Freedom.

But rather than celebrating the victory of an independent, partially crowdfunded movie over Disney's latest juggernaut, the left-leaning press engages in nitpicking, using technicalities and intricacies to explain “it wasn't exactly that.” They dismiss it as a “fleeting moment” when an “unoccupied fandom” flocked to the cinemas, in order to manipulate the numbers for headlines. Of course, they claim this isn't a conspiracy theory—just professional skepticism.

God’s Children Are Not For Sale

But nothing has touched a nerve quite like the phrase “God's children are not for sale,” spoken early in the film, in a scene that isn't even among the most dramatic. The use of the word 'God' here is not confined to religious connotations; it acknowledges the inherent dignity of life and nature that should never be violated or taken away. It's akin to the concept of 'God-given rights' or 'acts of God'.

The Left disagrees with that. They are petrified that people might watch the movie and reflect on its message, advising, “decent people who wish to live good, happy lives should under no circumstances actually do this.” They caution against the movie's message, suggesting that the 'evil' producers are aware that “normals” can hear them, implying subliminal messaging.

They warn that the movie “claims” to be based on a true story but “embellishes and misrepresents” facts, assuming their audience is gullible. These are the same people who believe actors should only portray characters with identical backgrounds to their own, mind you.

In the midst of Freudian slips, conspiracy theories, and the way the movie has gotten under the skin of left-wing ideologues, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Sound of Freedom is must-watch cinema!