Sound of Freedom: The Real Reason the Legacy Media Must Bury It
“Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!” (Proverbs 30:4)
“…whether it’s intentional or not, it could be argued that the United States government has become the middleman in a large scale multi-billion dollar operation that is run by bad actors seeking to profit off of the lives of children.”
—Tara Lee Rodas, volunteer on Operation Artemis, testifying before Congress
If you stay in the theater after the credits start rolling on Sound of Freedom, you hear a special message from Jim Caviezel who plays the lead character in the film — a DHS agent who is dissatisfied with the middling results he gets hunting down domestic pedophiles and decides to take his expertise south to Colombia in an off-the-books rescue operation to save as many children as he can and one girl in particular whose abduction weighs on him day and night.
In the special message, Caviezel reveals that Sound of Freedom was made five years ago and had jumped through every hoop you could imagine to make it into theaters.
Five years ago. Hm. What else happened about five years ago?
When Disney completed its acquisition of 21st Century Fox in March 2019, it acquired Sound of Freedom. Four months after the acquisition, a man named Jeffrey Epstein, who had previously pled guilty to acquiring a child for the purpose of prostitution, was arrested yet again. One month after that, Epstein “committed suicide” in his jail cell.
Somewhere in the mix, Disney decided to shelve Sound of Freedom, and it is clear to me now, after having watched it, the central reason for the legacy media’s all-out war on the film.
A significant portion of the film is dedicated to an operation that Caviezel’s character undertakes in cooperation with a noble-hearted billionaire in which they pretend to purchase an island and solicit some of the seediest lowlifes in Colombia to bring at least 50 children to an exclusive island event to use them as sex slaves.
Sound familiar?
“Between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken via helicopter or private vessel to Little St James where they were deceptively subjected to sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity and forced labour.”
—Virgin Islands Attorney General
The sting operation in the film — which happened in real life — goes according to plan. The criminals bring boatloads of children to the island, and the authorities swoop in, make their arrests, and save the kids.
One of the characters — based on a real life trafficker — who is rounded up in the operation is a woman who initially enticed the kids to get their headshots taken and told their parents she could connect them to the entertainment industry. Shockingly, she uploads the kids’ pictures to the internet and funnels the kids to traffickers who transport them all over the world to be used for sex or labor.
Are things becoming a little clearer?
“There were always women, of course: frequently attractive, sometimes suspiciously young, on the arms of Epstein or one of his many guests or, sometimes, ferried over in groups aboard a 38-foot boat called the Lady Ghislaine, reportedly after Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.” [LINK]
In 2014, CBS News was running praise pieces about Tim Ballard, the hero of the film, and his ongoing efforts to rescue children.
Today, the media is waging all out war on the film. Miles Klee of Rolling Stone has accused Ballard and Caviezel of “fomenting moral panic for years over this grossly exaggerated “epidemic” of child sex-trafficking” in a wild, unhinged hit piece from a magazine run by the establishment. Protest too much?
Now, I have my own criticisms of the movie, namely that it’s about 20 minutes too long, doesn’t always earn its tension or its humor, and that Caviezel’s limited acting capabilities make uncomfortable moments in the first half of the film extra uncomfortable, but anyone who suggests that it’s a film for dads with brainworms may need to, um, get tested for brainworms.
How about Charles Bramesco’s review in The Guardian, who says Caviezel himself — not his character, but the actor himself — “betrays an evident messianic complex.”
Boy, someone should probably check out the online history of some of these guys—oh wait, someone did…
That’s largely been the media’s reaction to the film, and here’s why.
The importance of the connections I made above between the events depicted in the film and the story of Jeffrey Epstein is made far clearer when we pinpoint the subtle difference in the two stories.
In Sound of Freedom, the billionaire who is posing as the island’s owner is truly a good Samaritan who’s trying to catch the bad guys, and the kids who are being trafficked are being shipped in by the evil scum of Colombia.
In the Epstein story, the billionaire himself is the one procuring the children, and his partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell, is doing the enticing and manipulation. It has all the hallmarks of one of Tim Ballard’s sting operations, yet the trafficking seems to be…an in-house affair.
Drawing that connection alone is enough to make some three-letter agencies get a little sweaty. Caviezel himself has acknowledged the important of this connection. This is why they needed to bestow the Q Anon dunce cap on Caviezel as soon and as forcefully as possible.
Could the media’s reaction to Sound of Freedom have something to do with the fact that ABC had the Epstein story in its hands years before the story came out but decided to bury it? Too much dirt floating around incriminating too many people? The world may never know.
But the world will always know that Noah Shachtman, the Editor-in-Chief of Rolling Stone — you know, the brainworm magazine — manipulated an article about how a star news correspondent, James Gordon Meek, had just been arrested for retaining shocking pedophilic videos. Meek worked for ABC — you know, the Epstein story cover-uppers.
Shachtman, who had a friendly relationship with Meek, took editorial control from the reporter whose mother was dying, and removed all suggestions that Meek’s arrest could have been for anything but his reporting.
Funny how pedophilia and stories about pedophiles are so well kept under wraps in corporate media, huh? But I’m sure that’s another one of those conspiracy theories.