Marlon's Mao: Part Two

I was a mere teenager in the fifties when it was broadcast widely that the Chinese “don’t really have the same love of life that we do.”

Apparently the Americans at Jonestown were part Chinese, eh?

Here is the Last Will and Testament of Jonestown:

Dear Comrade Timofeyev,

“The following is a letter of instructions regarding all of our assets that we want to leave to the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Enclosed in this letter are letters which instruct the banks to send the cashiers checks to you. I am doing this on behalf of Peoples Temple because we, as communists, want our money to be of benefit for help to oppressed peoples all over the world, or in any way that your decision-making body sees fit.

The letters included listed accounts with balances totaling in excess of $7.3 million to be transferred to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Hmmm …. Communism.

It is my opinion that the ultimate fate of both Communism and the American version of the same tyranny, the centralized governing ambitions of Progressivism, will prove to be as murderous and as ultimately suicidal as Jim Jones and Jonestown.

The body count of Mao Zedong’s own Jonestown-like reign over China is presented in detail by the authors Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Now we have high-level members of the Progressive Obama Nation’s court and Progressive Hollywood’s elite applauding the likes of Mao, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez.

Millenniums of Judeo-Christian Law, not to mention a bust of Sir Winston Churchill, are now being tossed out the windows and doors of the White House.

The question is: how can Hollywood and its Progressive Film Industry romanticize the likes of Mao Zedong in a film of his life?

Unless Mao can become the charismatic magnet of Hollywood that Marlon Brando was at one time, the likes of Anita Dunn and her admiration of Mao cannot go any further than the Oval Office.

[youtube HiBDpL2dExY nolink]

However, Mao and Che shirts are being sold worldwide.

Mao’s image was on the White House Christmas tree.

What is Mao but a survivor’s version of Jim Jones, multiplied by a death count of about 27,233?

And where did Mao spend all the money he received for selling almost all of the rice crops in China to Stalin’s Soviet Union?

As payment, China received lethal military weapons and materiel.

These were Mao’s endlessly death-dealing obsessions.

Former Governor Sarah Palin labeled one particular portion of the multi-thousand-page, obfuscating Health Care Bill as the creation of a “death-panel”. With Mao on the minds of the Obama Nation, what have we invited into our most powerful seat of power?

All that Progressives need now is a super-star they thought they had in Barack Obama. Obviously they are looking above and beyond Obama to Mao!

If only Marlon Brando hadn’t gotten so fat and died, eh?

Obviously the great actor had a taste for roles holding imperial power, performing as both Marc Antony of the Roman Empire’s first Triumvirate and Napoleon Bonaparte of France. Also we caught, I believe, a brief glimpse of a Mao-like guerrilla fighter in Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now.

Brando’s Col. Kurtz wallows in an insanely homicidal progress through Vietnam’s own “killing fields”, killing, killing and killing, mirroring much of Pol Pot’s Communist massacre of Cambodia.

Cambodia post-Pol Pot

Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward left a similarly homicidal swath of starvation throughout all of China.

“The horror …” as Kurtz says. “The horror of it!”

Marlon Brando could have had Mao mugging through the Lotus Gardens like a playful Don Corleone with his grandchild. He could possibly have charmed us with Mao as another revolutionary, Emiliano Zapata, stumbling humbly through his reading lessons.

In the same way Marlon Brando inspired our affections for Don Corleone, he could have actually left us amazed with the deadly declarations of Mao’s right-hand man, Zhou Enlai.

However, as Hollywood does do, the script writer could put the words of Zhou in the mouth of Marlon’s Mao.

So far my article on Kissinger as a “Courtier” is the only response to what I still consider one of Kissinger’s most revealing admissions: how the Mao Regime had “shamed” him.

How can the most shameless dictatorship in the world possibly shame one of America’s most shameless advisers to one of our most shameless Presidents, Richard Nixon?

Mao Zedong is, in actual fact, the secret God of not only Dr. Kissinger but American Progressivism in its entirety. Therefore it is not so much “shame” as reverence.

In conclusion, if you really wish to be led to drink Kool-Aid or starve to death like the so-called, life-hating Chinese, then fall for Progressive Hollywood’s version of Mao.

Combine Brando’s poetic but ruthless Kurtz with his lighter turns in Teahouse of the August Moon, the cunning madman in Missouri Breaks and, of course, Don Corleone of Godfather?

You are well on the way to Marlon’s Mao!

However, there are reports that Marlon Brando’s own last days were like a self-inflicted euthanasia.

Purposely disregarding the advice of his doctors? Hmmm …. there is certainly a personal Apocalypse Now, or, even more precisely, The Heart of Darkness in that decision. Marlon’s Mao, I have no doubt, would be everything Joseph Conrad, Francis Ford Coppola and possibly even Mao Zedong himself might have dreamed of.

A lofty and irrefutable model for Progressive Maoism, with a particularly intense concern for the environment which, in turn, would nicely justify wholesale slaughter and some forms of genocide. In Marlon Brando’s absence, who could possibly capture this monster adequately?

Well, with Oliver Stone’s revised versions of World History, perhaps his most culminating achievement will be his revisionist’s history of Mao Zedong.

There will really be no way to “top” such a film. Could there be anything more centrally important to the Progressive New World Order than Oliver Stone’s MAO?!

We certainly don’t want the God of Communism to be left misunderstood in the same way that Oliver Stone feels Hitler has been, do we?

It is possible that Mr. Stone might convince one of my favorite actors, Sir Anthony Hopkins, to create the same, immensely complex and surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of Mao that he did for Oliver Stone’s Nixon.

Yes, perhaps Marlon Brando’s absence, in this case, was a favor, not only to Oliver Stone, but to Marlon Brando himself.

With only the likes of Oliver Stone’s MAO to beckon Marlon Brando back to his former imperial glory, is it any wonder that the Far Left’s Screen Hero just stopped taking care of himself?

[Part one of this article can be read here.]