Monday, 20 July 2009

A Righteous in Libertarian Clothing.

An unwilling victim of the 'You Must Watch Mucky Movies' Brigade.
(Picture found corrupting weak minds here).


Can a film critic claim to be libertarian while calling for the banning of a film he hasn't watched?

This (oxy)moron thinks so.

There's a new film out filled with sex and violence. Sounds like fun. I know there are those who think Libertarians would have infant-school day trips to watch it, but not so. It would be the parents' responsibility to decide whether their child can watch it and once they're old enough to join the Army, they're old enough to make their own decisions. Joining the Army can be a life or death decision. No bigger decision is possible so if they're judged old enough for that, they're old enough for anything. Currently the Army takes recruits at 16 and a half years old and they could be killed defending the country before they're old enough to go into the booze aisle of a supermarket. If you think that makes sense, I have a very nice bridge for sale.

Back to our authoritarian libertarian, Christopher Hart.

A film which plumbs new depths of sexual explicitness, excruciating violence and degradation has just been passed as fit for general consumption by the British Board of Film Classification.

General consumption? You mean they'll shelve it with Disney films?

They have given the film an 18 certificate.

Aha, this is the restricted general consumption that goes along with compulsory volunteering, killing in the name of peace and A* grades without knowing the subject - also known as 'freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength' in that order. I see.

As we all know, this is meaningless nowadays in the age of the DVD because sooner or later, thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children.

Ah, but Libertarianism is all about responsibility. Corrupting children harms them, and the central tenet of Libertarianism, 'cause no harm to others', is therefore violated and the parents will be held responsible for their actions. As it is, they aren't allowed to take responsibility, so many of them don't. Besides, films like A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist, Hellraiser and much stronger stuff is all on DVD now. If parents are likely to let their kids watch this one (which I doubt many would) then those kids have already seen some blood and boobs. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's happened already.

You do not need to see Lars von Trier's Antichrist (which is released later this week) to know how revolting it is.

Actually, I would need to see it to know how revolting it is. There's no other way to judge. I'm not going to take your word for it just because you didn't like it.

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I

Huh? So you're telling me I shouldn't be allowed to watch a film you have decided is utterly without merit, and you haven't even watched it yourself? How did you come to this conclusion, pray tell?

and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency.

You're not sounding very libertarian here. You're sounding New Labour to the core, I'm afraid. Are you trying to give the impression that libertarianism is the same as Labour, Tories, Lib Dems etc? It's an interesting new approach but it's not working.

But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

Is it? Depends who wrote what you're reading, wouldn't you say? Someone who didn't like it, wrote a review and exaggerated? Someone in PR thought it might be a good idea to hype it up? The British Board of Film Censors actually watched it and let it through. They didn't rely on second-hand reports. Neither will I. As a 'libertarian critic', neither should you. At this point I'd like to ask - isn't watching films your, ah, job?

The husband and wife go to stay in a log cabin to recover from their grief. There, horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed unfold in graphic detail.

Well of course you've never witnessed them. You've never watched the film. You don't know what these horrors are, how they are portrayed, whether they are on screen or off screen, nothing. Yet you deride the film and call yourself libertarian!

Now the anonymous moral guardians of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in their infinite wisdom, have passed this foul film for general consumption

But you don't like it, so the anonymous moral guardians are wrong. We must all bow to the Morals of Hart, for they are superior to ours.

Oh, and he doesn't miss the 'for the cheeldren' part...

Another bizarre but typical judgment from this panel of experts whose names we don't even know (and so we don't even know if they are parents).

No, they are Augustine monks watching films on a remote Scottish island in a cinema powered by harnessing lightning with a big machine run by a hunchback called Igor. I don't know if they are parents either but odds are, some of them have children. But we don't know their names, remember, because Hart has said so twice. Then he says -

We do know that its president, Sir Quentin Thomas, gets £28,000 for 25 days' work a year. Nice job if you can get it.

How can this be? The name nobody knows is here, in print before our eyes. What dark magic is this? And he earns £28,000 a year for 25 days of work. Shocking. He could be on triple that if he was an MP. But we cannot possibly know this man's name, salary or working hours because he is an anonymous moral guardian. Mr. Hart, meet Mr. Logic. You haven't met before.

I tried to find out more from the Institute, but to my small surprise they disdained to reply. But you can be sure that they in turn are funded by the EU and so by my taxes - and yours.

Possibly. But you're assuming here, not declaring a definite truth. It would be wrong to carry on as if your assumption were true.

How do you feel about that? If not shocked, then weary, furious, disgusted? Well you can complain all you like, but no one is listening. Our arts mandarins, along with the rest of our lofty liberal elite, don't work like that.

What, you mean how do I feel about your assumption that the film was paid for by taxes when you present no evidence? Shocked, perhaps. How would I feel if the film actually was funded by taxes? Well, our taxes are spent on much more wasteful and pointless things than films so I don't mind all that much, actually.

Oh, and I don't agree that our elites are 'liberal' in any sense of the word other than the doublethink one.

How odd that while government-appointed health czars are so obsessed with anything that might harm the nation's physical wellbeing - hanging flower baskets, conkers, too much sunshine, not enough sunshine - any concern with the nation's moral or spiritual well-being has completely vanished.

Ah, Mr. Pretend Libertarian, you seek to justify adding more control to our lives by saying 'well, all that stuff is controlled so we should control this too'. That is not libertarian, that's insidious Righteous creeping totalitarianism, which is what we're going through now. Those things you mention cannot harm the nation's well-being, only the individual's, and the individual should be allowed to assess their own risks and make their own choices. You use these spurious examples to justify control of the entire population's morality. Specifically, everyone must think as you do or they are immoral.

As for this -

Censorship today seems to have been reduced to the feeble principle that if it doesn't harm children, then it should be allowed.

As soon as it's released on DVD, Antichrist will harm children anyway, deeply and irrevocably. But when did this principle of protecting only children arise anyway? What about harming adults?

He's extended 'For the cheeldren' into 'For the adults too' and he calls himself libertarian! He wants to decide what ADULTS can and cannot watch! Look, some people won't want to see this film because it contains sex and violence and that's fine. Nobody is going to pin their eyelids open and force them to watch it. It's a matter of choice. A Libertarian would understand that.

A Righteous would not.

If I were to see Antichrist, I don't believe for a moment that it would incite me into copycat violent behaviour or make me a danger to others. But it would poison my mind and imagination, with explicit, ferocious scenes of sexual violence that would stay with me for ever.

Then don't watch it. Some of us have minds made of stronger stuff. We haven't all lived permanently comfortable lives and some of the stuff I've seen - without choosing to - in real life means that nothing on film is going to 'poison my mind'. I can tell what's real and what's not. Most adults can.

Isn't that good enough reason to ban it, or at least demand extensive cuts?

No. Just because you don't like a film you've never watched, funded from a source you imagine is taxes but might not be, passed as okay by nameless people you then name and give salary details for, is not a good enough reason for a ban. You don't like the sound of it. Fair enough. Don't watch it. Do NOT attempt to control everyone else's morals and then have the gall to call yourself libertarian.

But have we - that is to say, the hesitant, fumbling, comfortably cushioned, value-free Leftish elite who now govern us - got the guts? I doubt it.

All I can say is - wow. What planet has this man been on for the last decade? Have the government got the guts to ban something? Look around, Righteous Hart. They've banned pretty much everything and you, calling yourself Libertarian, want to ban some more!

It seems 'Libertarian' has become a 'cool tag' now, and is used here by one of the most ferocious Righteous I've come across. He clearly has no idea what 'libertarian' means.

Here's a clue for the clueless, Righteous Hart. It does not mean 'total control'.

37 comments:

banned said...

"...horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed unfold in graphic detail.
Well of course you've never witnessed them. You've never watched the film." Says it all Leg Iron


Every teenage boy that comes across this in the Daily Mail will spare no effort to watch Antichrist, vying with his mates to describe each bit of horror and gore. Nice one Chris.
Likewise non would be seen dead going into the C15 version of Brüno.

Torture Porn doesn't do it for me but for others, whatever rocks your boat.

Dick the Prick said...

If a film's images 'stayed with me forever' i'd kinda classify that as alright. Personally, I think Eastenders or anything with Ben Stiller in is more harmful as that's your life that your putting into a little bundle, pissing on and throwing in the bin. Revulsion is quite an extreme emotion but I listen to Today every morning so i'm kinda getting used to it. Cunts - don't suppose you've got his e-mail, could hurl some abuse before fucking off to work?

Man in the Street said...

Great article Leg-iron.

(sorry o/t - anyone else come in to blog contact with some twat called Roadkill?)

Labour Chuggers said...

o/t - Looks like Melanie Phillips reads this blog OH and crew.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200801/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Charities-hijacked-turned-pawns-Labours-class-war.html

Man in the Street said...

Just heard an ad on LBC for this

Snitch on your fellow drivers if you spot them dropping litter. FFS, apple core and fag end offenders will be littering up the courts. Jesus wept, although they don't explicitly say it, they are encouraging you to take reg plate details and report people. Mini-me Hitlers will love it.

What next?


http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/Campaigns/Campaigns/CarLitter/Default.aspx

"By using this site to report littering – whether from a car, bus, lorry, minibus, motorcycle or van – you will join our petition and be amongst an ever growing number of people throughout England wanting to put an end to the car litter problem.

Every time you see someone littering, help us do something about it by inputting the incident to our site. By providing us with the detail of the littering offence you will help us gather evidence to raise the importance of this issue throughout England. We need as many of your reports as possible to show at the highest level just how seriously so many of you take the issue."

captainff said...

Having read about this film in The Sun at the beginning of the month I for one can't wait to see it.Maybe.

The Sun piece about this film included actual descriptions of some of the things that the reviewer, named only as 'The Sneak'(maybe a job for the Times to reveal their identity?), found offensive. Maybe that's where this Daily Mail twat read about it?

JD said...

I hope you sent this article to Mr Hart. Can you publish his address by any chance? Superb article, if I may say so. Thanks, JD.

Taranis said...

By definition, the Righteous can never be Wrongeous.

I am a true libertarian (of course). I would never seek to inflict any injury on the egregious fucker. However, even he fell off his nauseatingly high horse, and entangled his testicles in the tack (made in China), and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum caused him to make a couple of dozen turns while so-entangled, and the tensile strength of his scrotum proved less than the force per unit area generated by the spin, I, for one, would probably piss myself laughing.

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

He's not a libertarian. He's a cunt.

Simples.

Balding Nobhead said...

Sounds awesome. I'm going to call Pirate Dave and see if he has a copy

Uncle Albert said...

'Twas ever thus. Remember the obnoxious Malcolm Muggeridge, in a TV debate during the furore over "Life Of Brian" in 1979:

"I don't need to see a pigsty to know it stinks."

Anonymous said...

Moral panic is so difficult these days, now the world actually HAS gone to hell.

Also, "Plumbs new depths?" Well, I've not seen the film, but apparently I can still comment on it, so: I doubt it. Films do not plumb new depths any more, because the Internet's already been there and come up with something even more horrible.

Agent Moselle said...

This article might have surprised me, but when I read that the "journo" you are criticizing works for the Daily Fascist oops Mail I was not in the least bit surprised.

Libertarian my arse.

I expect you have to be able to recite Mein Kampf by heart to get a job with that fucking rag.

Anonymous said...

Any kid can watch gore on youtube and the like, so film certifications are pretty much redundant.
I'm sure that will be an excuse for them to censor the interweb, the cunts.

Anonymous said...

Can't the libertarian alliance sue this chap for sullying the name of libertarianism?

Broad minded? Libertarian? I would have thought an understanding of English would be a prerequesite for a film/art critic? Obviously not.

Z.

Wesley Groves said...

It is a Zen moment. In France (& all civilized nations) you can see films of folks making love (natural). They aren't too keen on films of folks ripped open by zombies (unnatural). In America (& its colony Ukay) you may watch Gangstas eviscerating each other. Bit NO nipples. Last 5 mins of Spartacus in the US cut make no sense, Varinia speaking into thin air. Why? Only OUR LORD was cruxified. Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

That reviewer has made the film he blasted a surefire hit. Thick twat!

O/T anyone know Mandelsnake's car reg/make/colour etc? I can feel a Keep Britain Tidy moment coming on.

woman on a raft said...

My favourite comment from someone reading the article is that it must be lovely to be able to get paid for reviewing a film you haven't even seen.

They ask where they can get such a job. If anybody knows, could they also tell me, ta.

Earthlet Nigel said...

Another supercilious cunt assuming the mantle of the righteously indignant, pontificating from his DIY moral pillar.

Thy should stick to doing something useful and stop breathing, die and fertilise or pollute, whatever, the ground beneath themselves.

Über cunts

Anonymous said...

It's not unlike all those morons who parrot
" I abhor all that the BNP stand for"
Whilst their policies include having clean hospitals,a fair Old Age Pension,well equiped troops that do don't get put in harm's way unless British interests are directly threatened.....
Urban11

Anonymous said...

OH,
what's your email address?
I had an interesting link to send you re Obami. I tried the address listed,it bounced,I inserted an "L"
and it also bounced!
Keep sticking it to them at Labour List!
Urban11

Dick Puddlecote said...

I think the guy has confused the nomenclature 'libertarian' with 'raving authoritarian bansturbator'.

He must also be a bit of a dullard not to have noticed that he has been sucked into the same mindset as those who rail against conkers etc. - and he says he doesn't like the way they operate.

Ergo, he must also dislike himself. Simple, Hart, merely apply revolver barrel to thine temple and squeeze that curly bit of metal at the bottom. Job done.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Additionally ...

"...horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed unfold in graphic detail.

He's not visiting the right web-sites.

Anonymous II said...

Anonymous @20 July 2009 15:01

For Mandy's car, view the embedded video on:

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/03/friday-caption-contest.html

at 00:14

Mitch said...

If you made the old testament into a movie it would be a lot worse/better than this movie but would they try to ban it?

Field Marshall Watkins said...

Mitch said...

If you made the old testament into a movie it would be a lot worse/better than this movie but would they try to ban it?


Probably, but only because it's Christian. Now a biopic about MoHamHead...

wv: shate

no shit

Old Holborn said...

My email is

oldhoborn@gmail.com

I've been having trouble with it lately thanks to MI5

You could try oldholborn@hushmail.com

Wesley Groves said...

O'H now may be a propitious time to tell you-my applications on one site were fucked up & Lo and behold when I deleted all the political stuff (you & others) it magically came right.MI5 after you? Don't be paranoid.Knock at door 1am?Good Morning Constables.

frosty said...

Ive just bought two dvds "Anal Donkey Sex" and "Shaving Ryans Privates" there great, i wonder if Mr Hart would like to come round to mine we could watch them whlist my missus gives me a good fisting.

Nearly Headless Nick said...

Try www.rotten.com - you'll lurve it!

Field Marshall Watkins said...

Nearly Headless Nick said...
Try www.rotten.com - you'll lurve it!


I've seen people on there with hardly a head. Ain't got the stomach for that shit lol

Anonymous said...

You're wrong about the Army getting them killed before 18.

They can't be deployed before they're 18, so actually, they would be allowed to drink.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - tell it to Tesco.

Anonymous said...

Some libertarian slogans

selfishness is generosity.
poverty and starvation is kindness.
exploitation is freedom.
slavery is liberty

adam said...

you should be aware that the progressive luvvie think tank, the RSA, has big chatteratti discussions about how to co-opt 'artists' into producing the kind of propaganda the state would like to see.
I have heard them on the podcasts you can download from their website.
These artists are brainwashed into believing it is their responsibilitiy as euro citizens, nay, citizens of the world, to promote citizenship and sustainable development and ecofeckery. Then bully those who dont.


I dont know who this guy is but he may oir may not have gone through this training.

Anonymous said...

Wesley Groves you seriously think the security services have an interest in the drivel you write? I bet only half a dozen people even bother to visit your site. You really think they give a shit about all your "subversive" activity? Get a life bozo. You should get down to Tescos and stock up on tin foil. You can make a nice hat that will help you ward off the evil Zionist rays.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick correction on your post. You said:

once they're old enough to join the Army, they're old enough to make their own decisions. Joining the Army can be a life or death decision. No bigger decision is possible so if they're judged old enough for that, they're old enough for anything. Currently the Army takes recruits at 16 and a half years old and they could be killed defending the country before they're old enough to go into the booze aisle of a supermarket. If you think that makes sense, I have a very nice bridge for sale.

Yes they army accept recruits at the age of 16 yrs 6 months (with parental consent) but they are not allowed to serve in theatre ie go to war until they are 18 years old. At 16 they would go somewhere like Harrogate Army Foundation College where they would do educational exams and basic army training. As I have never attended I can't comment but I am in the British Army.

Apart from that, I agree with your point to the rest of the article.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails