scratch-mark

Fahrenheit 9/11

I was in the theater on the opening night of Fahrenheit 9/11; only it wasn’t to see that film. And just as I thought I might be safe, after braving the gauntlet of lefties queued up to find out what 9/11 “was really all about,” I walked past a Borders Books just in time to take note of a display showcasing The Liar’s new book, as well as another display with his book and that of his pathetic hanger-on wife side-by-side.

I suppose that as politics goes, it’s the left’s time to take their shot. They’ve failed miserably in every attempt to develop a propaganda machine, apart from the main-stream media, that serves more of an audience for entertainment purposes (e.g., "right-wing talk-radio"). So, perhaps this new film genre that I will term "Leftumentary" (propaganda by any other name) can survive beyond this November’s reconciliation of Bush’s "stolen election" of 2000.

But here’s one rub, of many: I’d no more be caught dead in a true-believer spectacle such as “Rush to Excellence,” “Hannitize America,” or “Savage Uncensored” than I would be sitting through the torture of viewing a pathetic screed of cynical propaganda by the likes of Michael Moore.

There’s one reason and one reason only that I am able to grudgingly tolerate the right while I have no tolerance whatsoever for the left. Quite simply, the “man on the street” from the left has virtually zero understanding of the practical and economic realities of how the world works. And here’s rub number two: until they gain some degree of such understanding, political persuasion on any level is virtually pointless. The man on the street from the right has a far better understanding of the complexity of what goes behind putting bread & butter on the table for seven billion people, starting with some wheat seed, water, grass and livestock. Their problem is that they see “freedom” as a practical tool in this endeavor and not a fundamental principal. Not only that, but they see freedom as an aspect only of economics, and not of all human action; thus, their insipid moralizing with regard to matters of personal choice and preference.

In view of the foregoing, there’s little benefit that could come from referencing Christopher Hitchens’ quite comprehensive review of this film. See, the problem is that we’re dealing with the segment of the population for whom Moore specifically targeted this film—lefties who distrust and/or hate George W. Bush and have a very superficial knowledge of the totality of not only the facts surrounding the events in question, but the regional history going back many decades. …Oh, and the doofuses—who barely merit mention—who believe this whole affair has anything to do with oil.

So, those inclined should consider giving Hitchens’ review a read. And if you think that Hitchens carries water for the right, think again. And this too, from the film review:

Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point.

A prerequisite to having ones’ intelligence insulted is to have knowledge and understanding of the subject matter. This would be why so many lefties just think the film is “great” and “thought provoking.” Ha, ha, ha; they know not what they don’t know. So, as a final illustration of what an intelligence-insulting (to those with the requisite intellect, that is) hack job this film is, consider Hitchens’ comments with respect to the film’s ending:

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (…) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that’s just from Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it’s highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It’s also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

(Link to Hitchens’ film review via Beck)

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

3 Comments

  1. Kiryl on August 11, 2005 at 23:37

    You fail to see things objectively. While Michael Moore's sarcasm makes any sensible person twitch, the individual facts he presents not only show Bush in a bad light, they are not without foundation. America's involvement with the Saudis did cause the 9/11 attacks. Giant benefit of the few (in form of oil profits) and some benefit of the many (low oil prices) were worth the lives lost on september 11 in the Bush administration's eyes.

  2. Richard Nikoley on August 18, 2005 at 09:05

    Michael Moore is a liar (as documented virtually everywhere–Google 'deceits of fahrenheight 9/11'), and that's a completely independent fact from what Bush is or isn't and what Iraq is about or isn't.

    I never use lies or liars to make an argument or advance a position.

  3. The Commentator on September 23, 2005 at 20:34

    "America's involvement with the Saudi's did cause the 9/11 attacks." Thus, concludes a lesson on how history as both a discipline and an art is dead among the masses. I wrote a post about Michael Moore regarding the issue of 'missing the point.' What good is the 'point' if it's based on flat out lies and editing trompe d'oeils? Michael Moore, as a contemporary pseudo-liberal documentarian tyrant, is the modern Cola di Rienzo. He's not a dissident but a mirage. I invite you to my site. The article is titled 'The Pretender' in my Culture on Pop archives.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780