Sound of freedom and the marketing strategy behind it

As a rule of the thumb,anytime the label freedom is used, anytime suspicion must be.

Liberals have a warp relationship with freedom. As a reminder, before the rise of liberalism, freedom was understood as in opposition to slavery. Free societies had no slaves in them.

Then liberals (more exactly those who coined liberalism) had this thought that a society that prevents members from enslaving people were in fact unfree, they were coercive. For a society to be free, people must be allowed to enslave. Otherwise the society deprives people from essential freedom.

A bizarre pattern of thought that still is in action among liberals (like for example the discrimination act rendered by the supreme court in the US)

And that is this convoluted connection to freedom that is put in action to promote the movie sound of freedom.

The movie is about child trafficking. And incidentally touches Thailand.

Thailand is an interesting case as a splendid liberal achievement.

Before the US involvement in the war in Vietnam, prostitutes were estimated to 40 000. After the war of Vietnam, the population had grown to 400 000. A tremendous growth. And to keep it in perspective, the US effort to grow the economy did not start immediately with the US involvement. It was shorter than the war itself.

Impressive achievement.

Obviously, prostitution was not grown as a economy involving adults only, but children as well. Even though the previous numbers do not account for children taken in the sex activity.

For simple minded people, only a fool would believe that liberals achieved the success thanks to a cabbal of millionaires, ploutocrats or whatever elite liberals prefer to blame.

The success was achieved due to a collective effort of members of liberal societies from all walks of life. The growth of the prostitution market is the product of a general effort by the US society and not by a meaningless segment of the US society.

By all means, a movie that would take that road would not sell, liberals do not want to hear that they are part of the problem. What they want is to be pictured as the solution. Any movie tackling the issue would be perceived as anti white rhetorics, white man is evil kind of stuff.

So the movie is that; featuring a white saviour liberals can easily  associate with, they can project themselves on the silver screen without questioning their contribution to the global pedophile network that liberal societies have set around the world.

It is a feel good movie. Once out, liberals feel good, they have seen glimpses of horror but not only they are dissociated from the issue their society generates but they are pictured as the solution.

And now freedom. Liberals are free people. They do not do as they are told. Suddenly, a cabbal, a clique would prefer them not to watch the movie. The same clique and cabbal that grew the prostitute population by ten in less than a decade in Thailand.

Liberals are free people, nobody tells them where they can spend their hard earned dollars. Dark powers want them not to watch Sound of freedom. Freedom, they are free people, they will go to watch.

Nobody tells them how to spend their hard earned dollars. Especially not when they book flights to go to Thailand to have sex with children.

Sound of freedom is a feel good movie, purposed to dilute responsible, marketed as taboo.

The movie will be welcomed by pedophiles all around the world, it will strengthen their position. They will go and watch the movie knowing that the movie advances their cause.

Aag hou op k@k praat...you and people like you are actually the bulk of the problem..

...blaming the 8% for ALL the ills of the world....can't take responsibility for your own choices...pathetic...you're the actual LIBTARD...or is that LIBTURD?

More specifically, the Brits, at a time when they didn't fear too many, abolished slavery. They could just as easily have kept the ball rolling. A ball started rolling in the places where slaves came from as their "sellers" rounded them up from the continent's interior. Of course, slavery was present in Africa itself...we know the Egyptians were doing it thousands of years earlier. 

The English took part in slavery, and having the gift of being able to self-reflect, abolished it.

And this is within a legal system, as given us by the Romans, where the term peregrini was used to denote a foreigner that would then be treated as best possible by the laws as governed the place he was from. It would seem unfair to judge a man by Roman laws, which he never grew up with nor was accustomed to.

It's not about how many bad ideas you have. It's about how good the good ideas are.

Tell me there is a more accommodating race on this planet than white people.

"Tell me there is a more accommodating race on this planet than white people"

You won't find one..... guaranteed ..... but if I say that, I am a racist....

Tough fucking shit 

"It's not about how many bad ideas you have. It's about how good the good ideas are."

Or how bad the really bad ones are...

Lol white countries were the first to abolish slavery at a time when it was abundant throughout the world.

That is incorrect. First, countries in Europe were not white. They were something else. The Romans were romans not white people.

On the other hand, white people re introduced slavery in territorities where slavery was banned for centuries and they did it while stating universal right of not being held as slaves.

As to the rest, abolition of slavery happened many times all across the world. China, for example, circa 0 banned slavery.

The very specificity of white people is not the abolition of slavery, it happened way too many times accross history.

The specificity of white people is to have reintroduced slavery in societies that had banned it while coming up with the natural theory stuff.

No one else ever did it.

Of course, slavery was present in Africa itself...we know the Egyptians were doing it thousands of years earlier.

It is more likely Egyptians did not use slavery.

As for the rest, that is the typical liberal attitude pointed out in the OP.

Before the war in Vietnam, Thailand had an estimated 40 000 prostitutes.

Therefore the boom to 400 000 is no big deal. It is not like liberals introduced prostitution in Thailand.

Africa had slavery. But their efficiency in enslaving people was pale compared to white people's (this along the fact their application of slavery was different: they took slaves as prestige goods while for white people slaves were capital)

By far, white people were the most efficient enslavers in human history. In terms of enslaving, no one else comes near white people.

So no, white people are not the only ones who banned slavery.

They are on the other hand the most efficient enslavers in human history and the only ones who ran a society that had both slaves and a high commanding principle that people must not be held as slaves by natural right.

Tell me there is a more accommodating race on this planet than white people.

Liberals have a deep self perception problem.

A faster way to approach the issue would be to asked  what other population is less accomodating than white people.

Going to be quite hard. Maybe an alien species to conquer the Earth one day.

"Dee Nile" is a river in Africa...Tradhole is a green tadpole...ÑV is a bitch...suck it up Buttercup...Go BOKKE!!!!

For reference, there are 700 000 slaves in Africa today...African slaves with African slave masters.

Only 700 000. That reads like an underestimation to cover the very fact that while white people governed directly countries in Africa, they never bothered to ban slavery.

There had been slaves under their governance.

Probably more like 14 millions or 20 millions.

.ÑV is a bitch

Maybe. Misplaced envy would in any case be worse.

Gosh, we've done so much for humanity. From technological progress, to legal systems and human rights.

What a narrative. No surprise the storytelling industry has such a place in liberal societies.

If anything, white people have painted humanity into a corner expecting others to clean the mess they made.

As to technological progress, white people have been for centuries in SA and have yet to develop anything that is African.