David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
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.
Robert Redford, 75.
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.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Pamela // Jan 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm
What I do not understand about liberals like Robert Redford and other so-called Hollywood elites, if they hate America and what we stand for so much, than why do they continue to live here?
Why don’t they go relocate to Moscow or Tehran or Pyongyang?
Acting is primarily the art of creating an illusion.on screen. Robert Redford usually portrayed the classic WASP character, like he did in the movie, “The Way We Were” opposite Barbra Streisand’s character. She played his Communist love interest. However, he has also enjoyed defying the convention of the times like in the musical drama, “Inside Daisy Clover” (1965) opposite Natalie Wood, in which he plays her husband who turns out to be a closet homosexual. Forty eight years ago, portraying a gay character in the movies was still considered shocking to most American movie goers.
2 Pamela // Jan 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Redford’s deification of revolutionary leader Che Guevara in his movie, “The Motorcycle Diaries” is typical of his liberal activism:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535
Stupid is as stupid does.
And yes, Mercedes-Benz should apologize for their stupidity and thoughtlessness.
http://bigpeace.com/hfontova/2012/01/18/should-mercedes-benz-have-apologized-for-che-guevara-ad-flap/
3 Sioux // Jan 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Nothing borderline here – Lefties like Redford are full-on pathologically mentally ill, unable to distinguish right from wrong or up from down. Ego is in full-gear judging by his very bad plastic surgery…vanity ruins that “We are the World” message.
At least Paul Newman had the class to use his profits for good works even if he shared a lot of the leftie mentality.
4 David Yeagley // Jan 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Let’s see: commies, beatniks, hippies, Lefties, liberals, socialists, progressives…
Been around a long time, haven’t they?
5 Sioux // Jan 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm
The only thing they understand is a good slapdown, those wussies. Who do you think beat up John Kerry? No way that was a hockey accident or he would be bragging about it. You can see it in his eyes…..but I do digress….a bit.
6 David Yeagley // Jan 24, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Surely, it wasn’t Teresa…
7 Sioux // Jan 24, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, maybe Terezah pulled a Mrs. Woods and beat him senseless with his squash racket.
8 Maharishi of Mayhem // Jan 24, 2012 at 9:53 pm
The commie scumbag finally earned a purple heart by getting his ass kicked. Sure did not earn one….or a Silver Star legitimately in Southeast Asia.
I wish the Viet Cong would have taken both him out and John McCain. Both lying traitors.
9 zephyr // Jan 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Ben Shapiro, author of _Primetime Propaganda_, suggests some socio-psychological reasons for why Hollywood bites the hands that feed it.
“Many if not most successful television creators [we could add movies to this] lived in relative poverty before hitting it big . . . many writers feel that they’ve made it to the top almost purely on luck . . . . These creators, who feel that capitalism has somehow worked out to their benefit . . . also remember a time when capitalism worked against them . . . many of these artists were cultural outsiders in their original small-town communities and therefore rejected the values of mainstream society as a defense. . . Artists of all sorts consistentely engage in the self-aggrandizing “outsider” delusion that their job is to ‘speak truth to power.’ The result is a liberalism that continually attacks the prevailing power structure.” (p. 3)
I think the “artist” characterization is the most logical–they can’t all have been raised in small towns.
Shapiro goes on to say that later generations of the Hollywood crowd believe “It’s not enough to reject society–they must foricbly enlighten the society that rejected them. They do this by shocking middle-class sensibilities.” (p.4)
10 David Yeagley // Jan 24, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Interesting. But, just to show I’m serious about this, Robert Redford is a brilliant, talented man. Maybe not the best actor in the world (a bit dull), but, certainly a thinking man. However warped, he has been thinking the same kind of thoughts all along. His activist aunt was jailed for her Communism, when he was a teenager, I think. It’s in one of my many blogs or articles about him.
So, he’s not feeble minded, but, just chronically cast in a “individualist” role, which accentuates, or glorifies, not belonging. Sociopathic. “Rugged individualist,” he might have been called in the mid-late 19th century. But, the anti-American bit is pure Communism from the ’60s.
11 Maharishi of Mayhem // Jan 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm
He may be a Communist….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWeZ5SKXvj8
12 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2012 at 10:17 am
Interesting!
From one of my older posts on Redford:
Communist site Guardian Unlimited (Britain) reports that Redford’s great aunt (father’s aunt) was a devotee of Emma Goldman, a communist Russian Jew who was deported from the United States in 1917. Goldman was arrested for protesting the draft and later deported from the United States. Redford’s family was in Los Angeles, but, liberal as the town has become, back then, Redfords great aunt was herself ‘run out of town’ for her association with Goldman. The great aunt (his father’s aunt) went to teach at, were else, Berkeley. Redfords uncle (father’s brother) was a Rhodes Scholar, but Redford claims hard times and poverty, as most faithful liberals do, whatever their financial connections. Redford went to Europe in 1955. He says Europe politicized him. That would be post-WWII socialist, communist Europe.
Redford’s Politics. January 23, 2005
13 Pamela // Jan 25, 2012 at 10:43 am
Robert Redford is a radical environmentalist.
Or, is he a hypocrite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaUQQMv80Oo&feature=player_embedded#!
He recently applauded Obama’s decision against the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have brought thousands of jobs to many Americans and would have boosted our economy.
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/redford_applauds_obama_over_oil_pipe_ruling
Some American Indians also supported Obama’s decision:
http://www.nnirr.org/drupal/node/294
With all the advances in technology and other scientific resources today, i do not see why they cannot construct this pipeline and at the same time keep it from harming the environment.
14 David Yeagley // Jan 25, 2012 at 10:54 am
Word is, Barry’s bud Buffet is the beneficiary of the nix on the pipeline…
Buffett would profit from Keystone cancellation
15 Pamela // Jan 25, 2012 at 11:29 am
So the bottom line is Obama wheels and deals and favors his rich and powerful friends while dissing the American people. Sounds like he is running true to form! I wish he would run off a cliff at full speed and take his skankball pals with him!
You must log in to post a comment.