Not since Pauline Kael on Cavett in 1980…
COMDR. EZRA LUGENPANTS: I’ve never got deep into Queen, but you gotta love the brio, the energy and the charisma of Freddie Mercury. I mean, he was over the top, but he had a style that was really like no other. And the songs, the reason they click is they, I don’t…they have a sustainability to them….
JOE WORMINGTON: The audience is a big part of the song (WHUMPS DESK A COUPLE OF TIMES). I mean, We Will Rock You...
JW: And he was a bigger-than-life performer. You know, you say the names Elvis Presely, Michael Jackson and Prince and Freddie Mercury’s right there with them.
EL: I think you’re right. Now, normally we don’t go into a general movie review on this show and then I talk about cultural issues, but you raised this with me. You said, if I can paraphrase what you told me before we turned the cameras on, you had heard bad reviews about this, and you didn’t want to, you didn’t want to pre-judge, you didn’t want to get it spoiled, but you went in there with low expectations. Tell me a little bit about…well, first of all, how is the movie and what was it about those reviews—what do you think’s going on here?
JW: Well, I think that something’s going on for sure. I went into the movie thinkin’ it was bad. Then after I saw the movie I heard how bad it was, but I loved it and I was with my 18-year-old son…and he loved it. And the audience was full of people with their teenage kids that were coming out and going, “Wow, this guy Mercury, who the heck, you know?” And it was one of the best rock ‘n’ roll movies I’ve ever seen, and the only one I liked as much, I guess, was La Bamba. I loved that. And I also liked Almost Famous. It’s right there with those movies. And, you know, the audiences decided, and you know, it made $100 million over the past two weeks…even though it was getting trashed by everybody. Now. the politics of it, I guess, I’m trying to figure it out, but there’s a few things in there, there are political things about where he was from. Obviously, the whole business of his sexuality, which his whole life, he did not want to talk about that. And you, he wasn’t, I think, the story wasn’t enough about the gay part of his life that the critics didn’t like, I mean, I don’t know, but that’s kind of what I’m reading into it.
EL: Well, that’s the thing, I mean, uhm, everyone in, everyone who’s a success has to be grabbed politically. Look at Taylor Swift. For so many years she stayed quiet about politics and she was practically bullied into saying fine, uh, fine, “Go, Democrats!” And can there be someone who is just about the music…? The criticisms in the movie reviews you mentioned, were they angry that the play was not more about gay politics and gay action? It was too much a musician’s movie?
JW: I read one piece in Vanity Fair talking about Sacha Baron Cohen, who was originally signed on to play Freddie Mercury, and I think would have been great at it…. And, you know, he wanted to go more into the gay lifestyle, you know, the clubs in Berlin and talk about Freddie’s life there, You know, this was in the movie, they alluded to it, they did not hide it, and this, you know, we all know that that was a different time. You know, if Freddie Mercury were alive today, it’d be OK for him to be married and have a family and all those things…but he would not of liked—and the Queen guys have said this—the focus of his life being in the bathhouses, and all this. That was recreational Freddy, but he was about the work, he was about the performing and the audience. And there are clips in the movie…where the press are really hounding him..,
EL: Today’s critics wanted him to, they were sort of echoing those reporters today: “Come on, talk about sex.” “Come on, talk about your lifestyle….” [AND ON AND ON…]
—Ezra Lügenpants and Joe Wormington,“Liberal Film Critics Aren’t Satisfied with Bohemian Rhapsody,” The Ezra Lügenpants Show, therebel.media, Nov. 19, 2018.
Fight Nazism! Shoot a Vancouver Island marmot today!
On last night’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, William Kay joined me to talk about his new book, The Green Swastika, which chronicles “the early years of the German environmentalist movement and the ecological views and efforts of leading Nazis.”
Although the Third Reich remained an “ostensibly” Christian county, William explains that Nazi elites were anti-Christian and sought to replace it with a paganistic “religion of nature.” WATCH our discussion to see how William found a wealth of literature on the overlap of fascism and nature, and why he thinks the writings of top Nazi’s like Himmler read like “a Greenpeace tract.”
—Comdr. Ezra Lügenpants, the rebel.media, Nov. 28, 2018.
The Globe and Mail!? But I thought we can’t believe a word they say!
JUSTIN TRUDEAU IS BUYING CANADIAN MEDIA! Trudeau has announced he’s set up a $595,000,000 slush fund for Canada’s few remaining private sector journalists — but only if he can “trust” them. I’m not making that up. Here’s how the Globe and Mail reported it: “A key question that remains unanswered for now is which organizations will be eligible for the new measures and which ones will be excluded. The government said the package will aim to help ‘trusted’ news organizations…”
—Comdr. Ezra Lügenpants, the rebel.media, no date.
Ah, that’s too bad—now you won’t be able to have Trudeau sell-outs like Joe Wormington, Sue-Ann Levy, Anthony Furey or Candice Malcolm on your show ever again
There’s an election next year. And if you are a journalist who wants in on Trudeau’s $595,000,000 slush fund, he has to know that he can trust you:
*No tough questions for Trudeau or his cabinet, no matter how incompetent.
*No embarrassing investigations.
*You have to demonize any Trudeau critics as “bigoted” or “homophobic” or “Islamophobic”.
*And you have to promote Trudeau’s policies on everything from the carbon tax to open border mass immigration.
Trudeau wants to turn Canada’s newspapers and private TV stations into little replicas of the CBC…. And every single media company in Canada is going to go along with this. Except us…. Every radio station, every TV station, every news website. Except us. Because Trudeau can’t buy us. [N]ow our job is more important than ever—because every other independent-minded journalist in the country has just been bought off.
Mmn, let’s see, have I left anyone out? Oh, yeah—Mr. Dressup and the CBC plot to turn your toddlers into trannies!!
Have you ever seen the CBC criticize the environmental extremist, David Suzuki? No, you have not…. There have been many David Suzuki controversies, and they are all treated the same way—ignored at best, but usually supported. Because it’s the CBC. Same thing with that unfunny CBC comedian, Mary Walsh. And don’t get me started on Jian Ghomeshi…. I tell you all this because I want to show you their pitiful little attack on the sole conservative at the CBC, namely Rex Murphy. Rex isn’t really allowed on the CBC much anymore these days; they barely tolerated him before; but under Justin Trudeau, the CBC has all but fired him…. Murphy wrote [a] column last month questioning the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford…who made vague, constantly-changing allegations against Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. The FBI investigated all of the claims and found them baseless…. And then a few weeks later, he did a follow-up…. But my point today is that some government bureaucrat in the Yukon thinks…Rex Murphy should be banned from speaking at an event in her territory. And the CBC has decided to help her campaign. This story has been published twice on the CBC—it’s so important, they’ve actually updated it…. Rex Murphy is probably the most loved thing at the CBC, because he’s so candid and thoughtful, and because he stands up for free speech and debate. He’d never call for someone to be banned. But Rex Murphy doesn’t represent the CBC’s culture. Jian Ghomeshi does…
—Cmdr. Ezra Lügenpants, therebel.media, Nov. 15, 2018.
Next thing you know these frauds will trying to tell you the Earth travels around the sun!
One of the more distinguishing aspects of the global warming frenzy is the playful manner in which its adherents approach language. Whenever they feel the need to rearrange the terms of debate, counter the emergence of “inconvenient” facts, or simply put a whole new banner on the crusade, neither shame nor consistency offers any brake to their innovations. Should the world, the weather, their most central projections “present” in any manner that doesn’t accord with their most pious predispositions, then they simply rename the whole thing. In the beginning it was always the fight against Global Warming…. But Global Warming proved an unaccommodating brand…. Hence the birth of Climate Change, a term so generously elastic and gorgeously tautological that it could fit all occasions, even to the contradiction of the principles of the “science” it was purported to designate…. The press were lenient with the change. They did not seem to wish to point out the obvious—that the radical renaming of the “greatest threat to the planet” might spell or at least hint that there may have been something wrong with the central presumptions of the whole scheme. After all, you do not see the great litany of sciences that are sciences…rename their disciplines. Physics is still physics, botany is botany, astronomers still study the heavens and biologists still stay with their original matter.
—T. Rex Murphy, National Post, Nov. 16, 2018.
“Whenever they feel the need to rearrange the terms of debate, counter the emergence of ‘inconvenient’ facts, or simply put a whole new banner on the crusade…”
Since its first hours in power, the Trudeau administration has been obsessed with the idea that it is a world champion in the holy combat against Global Warming…. This is the first government in the history of the world that has declared war on one of the constituents of the atmosphere—carbon dioxide.
Finland enacted a carbon tax in 1990, the first country to do so. Sweden enacted a tax on carbon emissions in 1991.
40 Countries Are Making Polluters Pay for Carbon Pollution
—vox.com, June 15, 2017.
Let it out, my son, confession is good for your shrivelled little soul
Can it be a good cause, or a true one, that deploys such deliberate and reckless misuse of words and phrases, that revises its fundamental terms at will, mis-designates key concepts, and brazenly twists language…?
—Murphy, op. cit.
Massively complex, yes, but, as a successful investment banker, I am perfectly capable of explaining it to the likes of you
Dire prophesies about climate change have failed to materialize…. Predictions have also been wrong, sometimes spectacularly, about temperature increases, endangered polar bears, disappearing polar ice and islands sinking into the sea. Failed predictions should make alarmists more modest about their knowledge of climate science, which is a massively complex subject.
—Joe Oliver, Toronto Sun, Nov. 26, 2018.
It’s why, 600 million years ago, not having central AC was pretty much a deal-breaker
For perspective, we should put our climate in a historical context. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, notes that over the past 600 million years global temperatures ranged from 12 degrees to 22 degrees Celsius. Currently, we are at 14.5 degrees, i.e. at the colder end of the range.
Just wait’ll you see how beautiful the giant ferns in your backyard will be in February 2030!
GHG emissions are now 406 parts per million, compared to the historical average of 2,000 ppm where plants thrive.
Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the [last] 55 years…. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster…. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind’s unintended global-scale geo-engineering experiment.
—Dr. Charles Miller, NASA clmate researcher.
So those of you who really love this planet, rev those Hummers!
Alarmists never acknowledge the positives of higher carbon dioxide which fertilizes plants and reduces vulnerability to drought, creating a larger tree canopy and more agricultural land.
—Oliver, op. cit.
Not so puzzling when you consider who was Minister of Asbestos Affairs during the Harper presidency
In the meantime, the world hasn’t made progress in cutting global emissions, which is puzzling since political leaders claim progress is a precondition to species survival.