Sundance, Soros and Robert Redford’s Double Life

David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle.


Pages: 1 2

His Sundance partner, George Soros, assumed control over the documentary division of the Sundance Institute in 2002.   Since then, most of the political avant-garde, the race-destroying efforts, have been made through the “Native American Initiative” program.  Here, Soros could bring all the non-white races under the supremely prized name of “Native American,” or, “American Indian,” by proxy or association.  This way, all non-white people could have the honor of being essentially “American.”  (And yet, Soros is otherwise mysteriously silent on American Indians.  He has no indigenous program for Indians, as he has for other “oppressed” groups in the world.)  He seeks to create social unrest, the Communist tradition, through racial agitation.  Somehow, other than this Redford Sundance documentary effort, Soros seems reluctant to toy with the American Indian.

But let Redford continue to flaunt his communistic rhetoric, openly, and unabashedly.  He’s famous for it.  Let him condemn others for their political sins (which Leftists always try to raise to a moral level), while he remains perfectly inconsistent, self-contradictory, and anti-American.

Let Redford become the exquisite exemplar of “I can, you can’t” position of every true Leftist.

I can do it, but if you do it, you are wrong.  Whatever you do, you are wrong.  This is how the Left artificially creates its moral superiority—in words.

Huffington reports, “Redford hit at politicians who prefer to help big budget studios that toe conservative lines and present little risk.”  What conservative politicians support Hollywood?  Can you give us some names, Mr. Redford?   And you think Transformers is a “conservative” movie?   Obviously, Redford means any movie that doesn’t advocate liberal immorality is a “conservative” movie.  But, did the GOP produce Transformers?

Redford is obviously in a dream world at this point.  The “Transformers” series received major cooperation from the Pentagon, says the Post, including the use of military vehicles and soldiers as extras.  This is Redford’s anti-war, anti-Americanism, to call the Pentagon “conservative.”  This is ‘60’s anti-war rhetoric all over again.

Redford, like all true liberals, is in a fantasy world, yearning for the Vietnam protests, free love, and LSD.  At his age, to have learned nothing of reality beyond adolescent rebellion, to have never grown passed selfishness, to perpetuate discontent in a professional, political milieu, is nearly pitiful.  Professing to have “national interest” while breathing a contrary continuum of graphic effluvia is borderline pathological.

Maybe it’s age-ism to see Redford this way.  After all, he has been consistent.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    You definitely misstated the synopsis of the plot of Jeremiah Johnson.

    • mrbean

      Pilgrim did well to keep his hair with so many after it. But he cooks good rabbit!

    • tagalog

      It's not really that the plot is misstated, but the interpretation of the plot is a bit overblown; Jeremiah Johnson seems to be against all war, not just the Mexican War (that one just happens to be his generation's war, and lots of people were against it, Henry David Thoreau for one, who refused to pay his taxes because of it). His killing of Indians was a personal war of revenge against the Crow tribe only; but it's certainly true that in the movie he kills a LOT of Indians, all right.

      And you have to remember, it was Will Geer's character who complimented him on his rabbit; what would a well-paid CPUSA member know about cooking rabbit in the wild?

      • Questions

        Didn't Sydney Pollack direct that one?

      • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

        It was definitely a good movie. I think Yeagley tried to throw the kitchen sink at Redford and missed.

  • davarino

    Its the fact that he and others like him, Sean Penn….etc., are extremely rich, which shelters them from the realities of life. This shelter is why they have never grown up and been able to have a consistant ethos that make any sense what so ever. If they werent so rich they would probably be in a mental institution

    • Mo_

      So true! They never have to see or deal with anyone who has a different worldview than they do, so they assume all sane people think that way and the rest of us are nuts.

      It is sad at his age, though. I didn't know he was that old and I didn't realize his views were that extreme.

  • fritzidler

    Have you lost your mind, Mr. Yeagley?

    Please can the movie reviews. You sound like Roger Ebert on drugs, trying to analyze conservative motives. But, you have stumbled onto something, when you point out, lefties think conservatives are wrong. It is their distinct characteristic; the customer is always wrong. In capitalism, the customer is always right. Which is why capitalist countries become rich, and why socialist countries become poor; the customer is always wrong.

    A leftie may argue here, that entitlement programs, for instance, are popular in America. And they would be right. They are. But that does not make the people customers; it makes them beggars. Even if they paid into this system, they are beggars. And I can say so, because I wound up on disability myself. You might say I had different views at the time. And the fool lie I told myself, was I had paid in, so I was "entitled." Dumb. Now I am a beggar, who is trying to get over the guilt of saying things like this. Watching lefties do that all the time, I've been thinking; why not? The internet has changed things.

  • mrbean

    Robert Redford, Sean Penn, and others like them are useful idiots who publically parade their anti Americanism, because they derive satisfaction from being anti-establishment. They seem to find perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle the existing order, whatever it may be: an order they neither approve of nor feel they belong to.

  • tagalog

    Wasn't Robert Redford a bit of a preppy-boy during his college years, and early in his acting? I seem to remember a VERY conventional character played quite convincingly by him in Barefoot In The Park, if my memory serves me correctly…

    • Questions

      That was based on the Neil Simon play. It came out around late 1966-early 67. Co-starring Jane Fonda (in her pre-radical days), he played the part of the newlywed stuffed shirt unenamored of his wife's let-it-all-hang-out ways. Redford also was part of the "Peyton Place" cast of a couple years earlier. Hey, stuff happens.

      • Cris G.

        He was never part of 'Peyton Place'. That was Ryan O'Neal.

    • mlcblog

      I think his nice boy image is very cynical on his part, like others (John Cusak for one) who take the American public's money with movies we like and give it to leftist causes.

    • http://- Cris G.

      He was never a ‘preppy-boy’ in real life. He came from a poor to lower middle class family, although his mother was related to actor Robert Young. I think Redford resembles him a bit, esp. when you see 1930s movies of Mr. Young. He developed a negative view of the world during his teens, esp. when his mother died when he was 19.

  • http://www.okcteaparty.org DMW

    Perhaps, before he started making his own films, he developed a strong distaste as an actor and director for "producers" — the ones who actually put up and controlled the buckos. You know, the Capitalists who — behind the scenes — ensure Redford's product gets produced, marketed, and distributed as he gets the fame and rich too. Of course, as a "mere" actor he probably learned to believe he was being exploited don't ya know.

    • fritzidler

      I agree.

      I know the left always leap to the wrong conclusion, but you are right. If you have had many bad, or frustrating, experiences with business men that you have always been told are "capitalists," you might start to take a dim view of them after a while. But what successful people like Redford refuse to admit, is that they are bosses now, or employers. They won't even admit they are rich. Or dodge taxes. Or side-step unions. Or invest on Wall Street, including in the "war machine."

      I just re-read your comment and realized, I miss-read your sarcasm. But what the hell, I'll leave my comment.

    • Soljerblue

      and now he's being 'managed', and perhaps exploited, and certainly funded, by the likes of Soros? Dogs always return to their vomit.

  • http://www.badeagle.com David Yeagley

    Redford is intelligent and creative. A bit dull as an actor (in my view), nevertheless he has been consistent–like a leech or a parasite. To feed off condemning America is granting yourself an ever-present, ever-rich diet. Guaranteed life for the leech.

    • mlcblog

      I heartily agree about his acting. I found him flat much of the time. Not even a motion or change of face.

      • Questions

        I don't think so. In "Three Days of the Condor" and "Out of Africa," for example, he came off as pretty convincing. In any event, low-key acting can be done effectively either as pained ambivalence (e.g., the underrated Nicolas Cage) or deadpan humor (e.g., the great Bill Murray). Okay, so Redford isn't a great actor. But he is a good one. And as a director ("Quiz Show," "The Horse Whisperer"), he's made some very affecting films.

        • mlcblog

          Though you are explaining it to me?!! I still see him as a second-rate actor. I think I can see and appreciate nuanced acting and theater in general.

    • KasrhiKhanabad

      Good to hear from you, Mr. Yeagley. I still laugh at a Johnny Carson parody of National Inquirer: "Robert Redford's hometown held a Robert Redford lookalike contest, and a jar of mayonnaise won first prize!"

  • kongMing

    "Redford hit at politicians who prefer to help big budget studios that toe conservative lines and present little risk."

    Yep. King Kong or The Dark Knight can never reach the artistic merit of Piss Jesus, The Skin I Live In, or Harry Reid's Cowboy Poetry.

  • http://www.rmarkmusser.com Mark Musser

    Redford is not a communist, but an environmentalist. Jeremiah Johnson is his most personal movie, fillmed on location at Sundance. It is his favorite movie. The movie actually cleanses the real "Liver Eatin Johnson" who after avenging his wife's death by killing Crow Indian warriors, then ate their livers. The real Jeremiah Johnson was a huge man and died in Los Angeles in 1900. Redford turned him into a hippy, anti-war, anti-Christian environmentalist in Jeremiah Johnson.

    • kongMing

      He didn't eat their livers. The legend goes he bit into them, spit them out and said "Crow not worth eating" which probably is overblown, and if it was done was in response to a cannibalistic tradition which the Crow started.

    • mlcblog

      He's a commie. Has been for years. Not carrying a card if that's what you mean. Goes along with all their stuff, yes, through other front groups such as the green movement, independent films, etc., now with Soros in whatever they will cook up to sound oh, so sweet and noble to the populace whilst yanking away (or trying to take away) our very freedoms which were so hard-won by our forebears and which need to be taught more today, especially to the younger people who will inherit this great nation.

  • pennswoods

    I wish Redford would be the first Hollywood liberal who will volunteer to give up his enormous wealth and vast property holdings out west to the poor to help Obama's wish to narrow the gap between the poor and the rich. Why isn't a three bedroom house with 1 1/2 baths good enough for him and the rest of the Hollywood and Washington liberals if it's good enough for the rest of us? After giving up their fortunes to help the poor Redford and other wealthy liberals could easily commute to work in one of their Prius cars or even take the bus.

    • Cris G.

      Why would he give up his wealth and properties? America isn't Russia or China. He's living the American dream. So would you or anyone else in his position.

  • Nat

    What a crying shame!

    Seeing him in all his movies I thought; "What a fine man!". Now I see him as a damn fool.

  • Oleg

    Robert Redford and the other Hollywood has been "Champagne Socialists" have been sticking their noses into Canada's domestic affairs including the building of a pipeline from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia.
    Mr. Redford, Canada is not a huge national park nor a playpen for the jet set to enjoy. This is a democratic country governed by laws and due process, we can handle things on our own thank you. You do not live here, nor do you work here, and when you come here you are a guest. You and the rest of your friends are free to express you opinion but we do not appreciate American leftests like you financing astro turf political agitation groups. In short Mr. Redford, mind your own business before you try to mind ours.

  • http://www.badeagle.com David Yeagley

    I don't think anyone (the public) knew about his world view when he was starring in movies. He was just a young, good-looking actor.

    • Linda

      I think your correct. He seemed so middle class american boy!

  • Cris G.

    Mr. Yeagley, a lot of what you wrote is true about you, too, and also about many of us who voice our opinions believing we're right when in the eyes of some we're wrong. Redford's opinions are not unusual for creative, artistic people to have. If his criticizing the government or other parties is anti-American, liberal, leftist, whatever, then most Americans are guilty of that depending on which party is running the government at one point or another. Let's be fair and openminded when we write and not base much of our dislike on preconceived notions, prejudices and 'Jeremiah Johnson' (which Redford did mainly for the action scenes and the outdoor filming). Sorry for being longwinded.