After a life of self-contradiction, has Robert Redford, at 75, become an impossible thinker? He has always condemned America, and yet made movies that epitomize and aggrandize American stereotypes. What are the effects of a long-lived double life?
Redford opened the 2012 Sundance Festival with a speech reeking rancor and self-righteousness. He faithfully condemned Republicans, Mitt Romney, and the United States. He lauded the Third World and its European leaders. It’s classic Redford—malcontent, contumacious, and ever anti-American. It is religion to him.
His recent “encyclical” of individualism, first published in the liberals’ Huffington Post, was picked up by the Third World papers immediately. From the ArabTimes to the IrishCentral, the havens of American envy resounded Redford’s perpetual discontent.
At least Redford has been consistent in his long range rancor.
A Communist seemingly from birth, Redford nonetheless starred in films dramatizing everything American, from baseball to American Indians. He always took the individualistic angle, though, which expressed his actual aversion toward the subject he portrayed.
For example, in Jeremiah Johnson (1972), he starts out typically condemns the war with Mexico, and takes to the mountains, like the true anti-social, anti-American he is. Yet, he also takes the role of the great White Conqueror—the war-loving conservative--toward American Indians. He marries an Indian woman, but then kills many Indian men. His brawn is so intimidating that he frightens off a fat Indian warrior just by looking at him. In other words, sex with a non-white race is okay, as long as you kill their men. That’s the macho thing. And we all know Redford is all about macho. What could be more macho than to kill Indians, yet scoff at America?
Such macho-ism is an established political position among would-be cultural heroes of Communism. It is a socially articulated embodiment of adolescent immaturity. Communistic from his adolescent years, Redford found a platform in which his “individualism” could be politically effective, and yet preserve some semblance of legitimacy and cause. Redford has always lived this double life.
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.