It's amazing.

They'll tell you they're not groomers and p3dos in the same breath they denounce a film for telling the story of a real-life anti-trafficking agent.

The Washington Post and Rolling Stone both came out criticizing the anti-child sex trafficking film, Sound of Freedom after its release. Both also praised another movie, Cuties, which depicts a twerking dance crew made up of little girls.

The articles that both the Washington Post and Rolling Stone released about Sound of Freedom accuse the film of being associated with QAnon conspiracy theories. The film is based on a portion of Tim Ballard's life and the beginnings of him forming the organization, Operation Underground Railroad (OUR).

Rolling Stone said that actor Jim Caviezel, who depicts Ballard in the film, has given "speeches and interviews" about "evildoers who are harvesting the blood of children."

The Post pointed out that the film has been "promoted on QAnon message boards" and plays into the theory that "global elites are kidnapping children, having sex with them and harvesting their blood."

Ballard and Caviezel recently went on an interview with Jordan Peterson. Ballard also addressed this and explained that blood and organ harvesting is "very real." He has posted a video showing a raid where this occurred in Western Africa.

He continued and said, "So, I might say something like that and then they connect it to something a QAnon person says about a celebrity who must be doing this too. But there's no evidence to back that. They make a false connection there." Other reports detail the practice.

...

The Post and Rolling Stone, aside from attempting to link Sound of Freedom to QAnon, praised the movie Cuties, in which little girls are sexualized in a twerk-dancing crew.

One statement from Rolling Stone said the backlash at Cuties was just part of a "tactic [that] has its roots in conspiracy theorist circles, such as the QAnon community."

The article alleges the backlash to the film was part of the "far right's obsession with pedophilia."

Are you quite certain that it's the right who's obsessed with grooming children?

Another piece from Rolling Stone called it a "coming-of-age movie" that was caught in a culture war. The piece says it was not "a salacious bit of pedo-bait" but instead said it was its "polar opposite" that points out what happens when children get too involved with sexuality.
So I had a big weekend. I saw both The Sound of Freedom and Mission: Impossible.

I'm very tired today so won't review either. I'll say both are very good.

Let me rebut a couple of the attack lines the pro-child-s3x left is using to attack The Sound of Freedom:

1. It's just for Bible-thumpers. Um, the movie was made by 20th Century Fox Studios. Disney acquired it when they bought Fox (for seventy billion -- good call, Bob Iger!). Angel Studios is distributing it only because Bob Iger and Disney buried the movie and refused to release it -- gee, wonder why? Angel Studios offered to buy the film from Disney. I think it was Bob Chapek, not Bob Iger, who agreed to sell the movie and release it from Unapproved Narrative Jail.

There are three references to God in the entire movie. Three. First, someone says "these are God's children, and they are not for sale." Then Jim Caviezel's character quotes from the Bible when he arrests a p3dophile. Finally, a character explains how he changed his life from being a career criminal to helping rescue children from slavery. He said God "commanded" him to make up for his past sins. That's it. That's the Bible Thumping Content. About a total of 21 seconds of "religious messaging." If this is a "religious" movie, so is Pulp Fiction. And so is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Didn't you guys ever go to Sunday school? 2. The movie is "paranoid." Although the left is careful not to straight-out say it, they're implying that child slavery is basically just a "conspiracy theory" of the right and that it never happens. The Guardian is attacking the film for the "conspiracy theory" that says, I guess, that children are being sold into slavery. Despite the fact that just two months ago, they complained of FaceBook and Instagram being used for child-slavery purposes:

Just in April, the Guardian published a report showing massive trends in child sex trafficking on Facebook and Instagram, and did not mention QAnon.

3. The movie is "making things up." Is it? You know, there's actual police videotape of the major bust seen in this movie, right? Don't watch this if you plan to see the movie; best to see it fresh and well-dramatized. But here's one of the "made up" events, I guess:
A version of this claims that while some of the events in the movie happened, it's all a Big Lie because the film, get this, made up a brother-and-sister pair who'd been kidnapped and forced into child slavery. See, the film took a few small liberties with the truth, and that makes everything in the movie Hitler's Big Lie. Weird how Hollywood and the unconscionable Groomer Media never takes a similar position with their "issue pics"! By the way, was anyone expecting a movie about children forced into prostitution to feature all the real-life details of exploited children? 4. The movie is "exploitive." I think they intend this to mean, "The movie plays to the fears and worries of conservative parents, so it's 'exploiting' them." Oh Media -- you care that conservative parents are being "exploited" now, do you? Weird -- usually you want to get them investigated as terrorists. But now you worry that grifters are swindling them out of $10 or $20! You do care! You really care! The other thing they could mean is that the film exploits child exploitation. Like it... shows this stuff leeringly. That's insane. It shows nothing -- everything is implied -- and of course the film's take on child exploitation is not "look how hot this is." That sure seems to be the media's take, though. Compare how the media is treating this movie to the welter of #MeToo movie released from 2017-2022. No one in the media every knocked She Said for altering some details for dramatic purpose. And no one in the media ever said "A few dozen actresses and news celebrities being grossly pressured into sex by some gross men is No Big Deal, and only a 'paranoid fantasy' of the left." No -- the #MeToo movies were praised to the hilt and showered with award nominations. You see, when a couple of dozen adult leftwing white women get propositioned by some toads, that's a National Emergency Which We Must Change Everything to Fix. But when 5 or 10 or 20 thousand children, from age 12 down to age six, are sold into the living hell and unwakeable nightmare of being r@ped by repulsive strangers five times a day -- oh, that's no big deal. We wouldn't want to upset some of our liberal friends whose sexual interests run towards the recherchée, now would we? I don't think it's working. The movie made almost $20 million this past weekend, only $7 million behind the $322+ million "blockbuster" from Disney, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

Where I saw it -- Saturday at 2pm -- the theater was 90%+ full. The front row was empty, and I didn't see another empty seat in the place, though there might have been empty seats here and there.

It might have made more. There are unconfirmed reports that AMC theaters in particular have been plagued by alleged "air conditioning failures" in just the halls where The Sound of Freedom is showing -- shows have been canceled, and even people who actually saw the movie have had their tickets refunded.

Because, allegedly, the "air conditioning wasn't working" in just those halls showing the film. And only in those halls.

I don't think AMC corporate would do anything like that -- but I could imagine Blue-Hair Nose-Rings Teenagers posting in #Resistance threads that they should all sabotage the movie at the cinemas where they work.

We see you, Regime Media.

We see you, Hollywood.