Why 'Sound of Freedom,' Jim Caviezel's controversial child sex trafficking film, is a hit

The people that like and promote this movie could care less about kids that get victimized at home, which is a million times more common.

 

Pizzagate to SOF, The General puts it together for you. Less subtle than most red-pilling. But he’s a serious patriot and doesn’t have time for slow-play.

#codemonkeyz is Ron Watkins, who was almost certainly the original Q.

That’s for others viewing this post, it would obviously be silly to point out who Q is to an anon.

 

Flynn is such an evil human. If there is any conception of a just god, he will suffer mightily in the afterlife

 

Good grief. He really posted that? Pizzagate should be reopened. It 's the elites who are abusing kids ...
What scum

 

Didn’t lie, unlike you who have lied about you being for lockdowns, school closures and masking while also supporting lia Thomas. Hell of a run Skippy.

 

The funny thing is that you can never actually point out a specific lie. I will do so here. You posted a statistic, making no mention of it being inaccurate or even unreliable at the time and then, when the inaccuracy/unreliability of the statistic was pointed out, you are now relying on the notion that there aren't accurate statistics. You did this in Post 259 and then tried to tell somebody that they were being ignorant or willfully obtuse by not acting as if your stats were accurate (which you now, but not then, acknowledge that you can't do) in Post 264.

Now, if you want to actually show a specific lie that I have told with post numbers/links, let me know. I'd be happy to go over it with you on the appropriate thread (an offer I have made numerous times and which you have never accepted).

 

Exactly.

That community has no interest in children being abused. It’s just politics, full stop.

It’s all BS like pizzagate, and here you see how they draw a direct line to the movie in question.

The goal is to attach some semblance of legitimacy to Roger Stone agenda stuff.

 

As always, I appreciate your information. I definitely want issues discussed accurately and the data presented to be factual. Goodness knows, inaccuracies abound on too hot.

There are several problems with the negative posts in this thread. While some people talk about desiring accuracy in reporting, many of their posts go far beyond that. They come across with a sense of trying to downplay the issue as if it’s no big deal. There’s a certain vehemence in this pushback.

I believe it happened during your hiatus, but sometime back there were multiple threads on trans issues. Some of the people who demanded care and support for every single trans teenager are also some of the people downplaying the extent of child sex trafficking. One trans teenager feeling abandoned made it a major issue, but then they turn around and downplay the number of children actually abducted by strangers so that it’s not a major issue.

The other disappointing thing is so many people are trashing the movie who have not even seen it. Some are trashing it because of things they’ve read on the Internet from other people trashing it, and just assume that’s all true.

Some trash it because of the people involved in the movie, which in itself is a genetic fallacy. If right wing people are involved, then it must be pushed back and denigrated no matter the topic. The vehemence with which people are trashing the movie here and on the Internet is astounding.

There’s a common theme on too hot when a conservative posts anything that raises a concern of an issue. The too hot liberals immediately begin a campaign to minimize, diminish, and push back on the conservative concern. They mock the concern and the people who raise the concern. They also try to minimize the conservative concern by bringing up other concerns which they feel are more important. This happens all the time.

 

Yeah, what’s the connection to the movie? Are you stating the events which took place in the movie were not based on real life events?

 

I don’t know about other times, but on this issue, “conservatives raising the concern”, or words to that effect, are absurdly wrong and doing harm. The issue doesn’t really exist as presented, and the agenda is being promoted with malicious intent.

Those are undeniable facts.

 

Yeah, not often I agree with Keith Olberman but I did here

 

The connection is in the X post or whatever it is now.

 

Do you have proof that the agenda is being promoted with malicious intent? Not your imagination, not your presumption, not your presuppositions, and not your interpretations, but real verifiable facts. If you don’t have that then it’s quite deniable.

 

You’re shifting the burden.

If something that doesn’t actually exist as described is being continually raised as an issue of concern, the critical mass for which comes from a QAnon mindset, what else do you need? What benign explanation could there be?

Seriously. Read the transcript or listen to the podcast linked to earlier and then get back to me. I will outsource all of my position to Michael Hobbes. The thought of kidnapped victims makes zero sense as a matter of logic.

This moral panic picks up on a lot of old fears, and there have been panics like this over the years, but Flynn, Cavaziel etc., are pure evil.


Link to an article. There is a transcript somewhere, which I will post if I find

Podcast Eviscerates Moral Panic of Human Trafficking

Transcript

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/youre-wrong-about/human-trafficking--NXAdSEZWPu/

 

No, I am not shifting the burden at all. You accused the makers of the film of having malicious intent. I asked for evidence of that malicious intent. You respond with a vague connecting of the dots.

The article you linked about that podcast only discussed the potential magnitude of the problem, and revealed nothing about malicious intent.

A theme of this thread has been the need for accurately reporting. Unless you have actual proof of malicious intent from the makers of the film, then it is inaccurate to accuse them of that, not to mention violating the 10 Commandments by bearing false witness.

I don’t get where this idea of a panic comes from. I don’t know a single person that is panicked over this issue. There are people who see that movie who had no idea that sex trafficking even takes place. The movie raises the awareness. Maybe the movie is not entirely accurate in the painting a picture of the extent of the problem. So what. There is no harm in raising awareness where there was none before.

Flynn and Caviesel are pure evil? That comment would have to be elevated to rate a “come on man”. Hitler was pure evil. Stalin and Pol Pot were pure evil. But a US general and an actor? Too much, man.

 

I did point it out numerous times. Take the L Skippy. How’s Lia Thomas doing? Good call there…

and you have no stats to prove me wrong. Ooops. Lying again, not a good look…

 

Does sex trafficking actually exist?

Define your terms.

And without getting into the Manichean heresy, putting out tweets like Flynn did (post 424) or saying the things that Cavaziel says are just pure evil,


The Adrenochrome Conspiracy Theory—Pushed By ‘Sound Of Freedom’ Star—Explained

Ballard, the founder of anti-child sex trafficking organization Operation Underground Railroad who is portrayed by Caviezel in the film, claimed in an interview with conservative commentator Jordan Peterson last week the adrenochrome harvesting theory is real and taking place in parts of Africa. Caviezel, who has spoken at several QAnon events, defended the adrenochrome theory on the right-wing podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, on July 11, stating the compound is extracted after “torturing little children.”

U.S. Republicans’ favorite summer blockbuster flirts with antisemitic QAnon blood libel


Caviezel told a 2021 QAnon-affiliated conference that Ballard could not join because “he’s down there saving children as we speak, because they’re pulling kids out of the darkest recesses of hell right now, in dumps and all kinds of places. The adrenochrome-ing of children.”


“If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline. These people that do it, there’ll be no mercy for them. This is one of the best films I’ve ever done in my life. The film is on Academy Award level,” he added.


Caviezel recently decried the coverage of his remarks on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, blaming Jewish billionaire George Soros – yet another antisemitic trope.


“A couple of years ago, I’m talking about adrenochrome. You can’t say that word. You cannot say anything about on George Soros. Do you know that he knows he owns many of these companies like The Daily Beast? They sure had their fun tearing me apart,” he said.


“There’s a big storm coming and they know it,” he added, referencing the commonly used QAnon slogan “the storm is upon us,” referring to the fight against the imagined cabal.

 

Moral panic is a recognized term. The current human trafficking claims are a classic example. The Satanic preschool panic of the 80s was another, and they are related



Witch-hunting is a historical example of mass behavior potentially fueled by moral panic. 1555 German print.

A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society.[1][2][3][page needed] It is "the process of arousing social concern over an issue",[4] usually perpetuated by moral entrepreneurs and mass media coverage, and exacerbated by politicians and lawmakers.[1][4] Moral panic can give rise to new laws aimed at controlling the community. [5]

Stanley Cohen, who developed the term, states that moral panic happens when "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests".[6] While the issues identified may be real, the claims "exaggerate the seriousness, extent, typicality and/or inevitability of harm".[[[Wikipedia:Citing_sources|page needed]]]_7-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-size: 11.2px; animation-delay: -0.01ms !important; animation-duration: 0.01ms !important; animation-iteration-count: 1 !important; transition-duration: 0ms !important;">[7]Moral panics are now studied in sociology and criminology, media studies, and cultural studies.[2][8]

Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory pedophiles;[9][10][11] belief in ritual abuse of women and children by Satanic cults;[12] and concerns over the effects of music lyrics.[13] Some moral panics can become embedded in standard political discourse,[2] which include concepts such as the "Red Scare"[14] and terrorism.[15]

It differs from mass hysteria, which is closer to a psychological illness rather than a sociological phenomenon.[16]

Moral panic - Wikipedia

 

Thanks phat! Hope you are well my man!

Yeah, I tried reading through this entire thread since it started before I came back. Holy smokes. A lot of arrows slung, many not deserved, but coming from all corners. It was hard reading.

So I def your concern about cons. Can't say I disagree either (not that I'm looking to) as I see where you're coming from. FWIW, I tried to stay out the mudslinging. I'm glad a bulk of it was before I came back. But I did pick up on the stats discussion and given my direct experience with crime stats, I hoped to at least provide some context for folks where I'd hope some common ground would be. Got criticized about it too. Not unexpected. Such is too hot. lol

 

Your stats didn't provide any context to the discussion at hand, because you limited the stats to child abductions that are initiated inside of the United States. The movie is not about American children being abducted. It's about foreign children being abducted and trafficked into the U.S. You're not providing context when your stats concern something that has nothing at all to do with the movie. That's why you were rightly criticized. I can see now the ones taking the biggest swings against this movie are ones who truly have no idea what the movie is about, because they haven't seen it. As if that isn't simply insane, to rant on about a movie that you haven't even watched.