Out in theaters last weekend is the latest cinematic interpretation of Robin Hood. Directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe as the eponymous hero, something atavistic is on display that is oddly out place in Black Run America (BRA).
In the 1991 version Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, political correctness dictated that Morgan Freeman was a necessary addition to the lily-white cast starring Kevin Costner:
If nothing else, ROBIN HOOD: THE PRINCE OF THIEVES is resolutely politically correct, positing a feminist Marian, adding women to the band of merry men, and inventing the incongruous Azeem, a black Muslim. Costner's surprisingly portly Robin is less a dashing force of justice than a decent kind of guy forced by circumstance to do the right thing because the wrong thing--embodied in the flamboyantly wicked Sheriff of Nottingham--is so obviously unacceptable. He's a Robin Hood for an age when no one believes in heroes.
Playing the role of Azeem (an entry in the hallowed collection of Fictional Black History Month), Freeman was depicted as technologically superior and advanced to the wayward English Luddites and gave a rousing and inspiring speech that energized the bandits Robin had collected to storm the castle and save the virginal Maid Marion from the would be ravages of the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham.
He helped deliver a child, despite the protestations of Friar Tuck and provided a chemical compound that turned out to be gunpowder.
Gone in the 2010 version of Robin Hood is any semblance of political correctness.
Most recently BBC produced a version of Robin Hood that had Friar Tuck portrayed as a Black male. For some, this might be a welcome addition to the mythology of Robin Hood as a diverse cast ostensibly appeals to a diverse audience. Historically though, this inclusion of a Black character amid the white inhabitants of Sherwood Forrest is akin to casting Clint Eastwood to play Nelson Mandela in a biopic on his life.
Historically inaccurate and ludicrous as these castings of Black actors to play comrades of the merry men of Sherwood Forrest might be, the Ridley Scott version drops all sensibilities of appeasing to the current zeitgeist.
SBPDL decided to see the film and quickly surmised a masterpiece was unfolding before our very eyes as only celluloid can deliver.
We’ll spare you detailed plot points from the movie and just say it represents something truly sinister: opposition to evil. Recall the words of the Declaration of Independence that were quoted reverently by Nicolas Cage’s character in National Treasure:
"But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security."
Like Pat Tillman, Robin Hood (in this version) was critical of the military campaign that was leading to the financial ruination of the realm. He still fought in the Crusades and followed King Richard the Lion Heart, but in one poignant scene gave his earnest opinion of the war, only to be rebuked by him as “brave, honest and naïve.”
Standing up to what is wrong and indecent may seem a difficult task. This movie shows it is necessary and vital through the constant usage of the term, “Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion”.
Most people understand there is something fundamentally wrong with America, or more precisely Black Run America (BRA). CNN has been designated the official news provider for BRA and watching this channel gives one entry into the mindset of Disingenuous White Liberals (DWL) and the Black mindset through the opinions of Roland Martin.
Rand Paul recently won the Republican primary for the Senate seat in Kentucky and appears to be the front-runner against his Democratic opponent in the November election. Castigated for his views on the rights of private businesses and ownership which run counter to Civil Rights the son of Ron Paul is on the defense for his beliefs. What does he do, defend them? Yes, but he invokes the name of the true father of modern America, Martin Luther King, Jr. in the process:
"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have--if I was alive at the time, I think--had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.
"You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.
"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of. I'm in favor of--everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights--and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."
Evoking the MLK defense in Black Run America is a sure-fire way to renounce any connections to the racism and bigotry and Paul is groveling when confronted with the awesome power of BRA.
We have stated it time and again here at SBPDL: any attempt to dismantle the Federal Government will be construed as racist. As Tea Party members demand that the size of the government be curtailed, Black people, DWLs and worse, Crusading White Pedagogues will demand for even greater governmental powers.
Libertarians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand fail to realize their ideas when seen to conclusion would result in the vast dismantling of the entire structure of BRA, with millions of Black people safely ensconced in high-paying public sectors jobs suddenly forced to compete in the so-called free market.
Daring to privatize BRA would be the doom of middle-class Black people who rely on cushy lifetime jobs as government bureaucrats. The rate of Black employment in the Federal Government is truly astonishing (only to be outdone by the McDonald’s Corporation), as Black over-representation in nearly every agency means that they will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by Tea Party, Libertarian, or offspring of Ron Paul who dare try and curb spending and waste.
It won’t happen. Libertarians are individuals who lack any sense of community and commonality to engage BRA decisively and would rather engage people in pointless, mind-numbing debates that rely on the theoretical and the largely impractical.
Reason magazine, one of the main organs sustaining Libertarian opinion (also slandering any of those who oppose egalitarianism as Ron Paul once did) published a review lauding Robin Hood:
The new Ridley Scott film Robin Hood, which has opened to mixed reviews on its merits as entertainment, is also drawing some critics' political ire. In New York's leftist weekly, The Village Voice, Karina Longworth laments that "instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, this Robin Hood preaches about 'liberty' and the rights of the individual" and battles against "government greed"; the film, she scoffs, is "a rousing love letter to the tea party movement." On a similar note, the New York Times' A.O. Scott mocks Robin Hood as "one big medieval tea party":
You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is ... a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.
Whatever one may think of Scott's newest incarnation of the Robin Hood legend, it is more than a little troubling to see alleged liberals speak of liberty and individual rights in a tone of sarcastic dismissal. This is especially ironic since the Robin Hood of myth and folklore probably has much more in common with the "libertarian rebel" played by Russell Crowe than with the medieval socialist of the "rob from the rich, give to the poor" cliché. At heart, the noble-outlaw legend that has captured the human imagination for centuries is about freedom, not wealth redistribution—and this is reflected in many previous screen versions of the Robin Hood story…
Of course, the idea of Robin Hood as an early socialist has had a lot of currency as well. Ayn Rand declared the fabled outlaw a symbol of evil—taking from the productive and giving to the parasites—in her novel Atlas Shrugged; on the other side of the political spectrum, a coalition of international aid groups in England recently made him their mascot when they proposed a "Robin Hood tax" on high-profit industries to help the poor in developing nations. But the original Robin Hood, while he has many different faces, is above all a fighter for freedom from tyranny—and that's what made him a legend.
In the Libertarian mind those with cash are automatically the heroes, titans of industry and above scrutiny. After all, the invisible hand of Adam Smith has smiled upon thee. SBPDL does not begrudge anyone with money and joins in praising those who devise clever manners in accumulating large sums of cash, whether it is legitimate business, sound investing or more providential manners. In most cases, SBPDL believes greed is good.
However, equating everything with the market is fatuous and inane. Sometimes people must rise against evil, standing for principles. Ask any veteran if they went off to war to defend some vague notion of free markets or individual liberties that would be used to justify the legalization of the most base and amoral behavior.
Libertarians refuse to acknowledge race, believing it to be a sinister form of collectivism to pit group against group and curtail individual freedom. If only Black people would understand the importance of individual ambition and self-reliance instead of relying on the government, they argue, then we could cut government spending, balance the budget and live in harmony singing songs, holding hands all the while lighting up on cannabis.
Fortunately for Black people, they understand the importance of group cohesion and use it for their collective advantage and survival.
In the onslaught of vitriol Dr. Rand Paul receives at the hands of the main stream media (NPR and CNN come to mind) those paying attention see the awesome power of BRA at work and concurrently, the fear they see in the ideas he espouses.
Middle American Radicals still exist and though many still hide behind the clumsy rhetoric of liberty and freedom - evoking the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. when any hint of racism is detected as the ultimate repellant against such dangerous thoughts - the ultimate fight will continue to elude them.
The Civil Rights movement and the laws created in its wake ensured forever the continuation of sins (real or imagined) by all white people against Black people. DWL’s atone for those daily, while Libertarians and Tea Party followers repent continually by wallowing in saccharine speech that constantly praises MLK, the father of BRA and individual most responsible for its continuation.
The 2010 version of Robin Hood introduces a dangerous idea that few seem to grasp: Courage. In the face of likely defeat, defiance and audacity is the only ally.
‘Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion’, is heard no less than 15 times in the film. When asked what that means, Robin simply states, “courage.”
Rand Paul has shown he has courage. He finds few words but detectable feigned praise to bestow to the memory of the father of this nation, MLK. Yet he stands firm in the onslaught of invective from the media.
SBPDL recommends Robin Hood, a movie replete with a mesmerizing score (reminiscent of Batman Begins), dazzling sets and complete with idea long since dead in BRA: courage.
This is no Libertarian movie, as a Libertarian movie would largely be set in a dingy, smoke-filled basement with four disheveled and ill-groomed virgins debating the virtues of private property, private enterprise and the importance of the gold standard. Midway through the film, one of the characters mothers would come down reminding the 30-year-olds engaged in self-effacing discourse it was time for dinner.
No, Robin Hood is a film that dares praise men of action who find mere debate trivial. Worse, it shows the ideas of liberty, freedom, common law and the rights of man grew in lowly, white-bread England. People fought and died for these ideals, instead of the latter-day nitwits who wax intellectually and pontificate about the ideal society where the free market will solve all ills.
A distinct people fought for centuries over these ideas and have yet to perfect them. Now, Rand Paul and his Tea Party followers believe that BRA will go quietly into the night due to the profound correctness of their theories and ideas. As we are witnessing, BRA is sharpening knives to throw at Paul with uncanny precision.
Limited government is an idea that white people fight for as they band together in Tea Parties across the nation and that DWLs and their Rainbow coalition of supporters in BRA refuse to endorse, knowing full well what an implementation of such policies would bring.
As we stated in the review of The Second Civil War, BRA will do everything to crush its opposition and survive. Even in the face of the largest ecological disaster in recent history, opinions that counter the prevailing political attitudes are verboten, regardless if they come from the prodigious mind of a recognized genius in physics like Dr. Katz. Major damage will continue to be inflicted upon the Gulf of Mexico by oil, but at least no one will have their feelings hurt by Dr. Katz politically incorrect thoughts.
Every generation gets the Robin Hood they deserve. In the 1990s, the politically correct Kevin Costner version served as the perfect fodder for the decade, accurately depicting the mindset of those in charge.
However, the 2010 account has a much more poignant message for those who live in this dark time: courage. Never waver from it.
Arizona is the beginning. Rand Paul might be the next step.
Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion.