Netflix’s Will Smith-Helmed ‘Amend’ Wants To Up-End The Constitution, Not Improve It

At its heart, 'Amend' amounts to a well-produced, well-acted, and well-expounded helping of propaganda for the ongoing war on language and history.

The Netflix limited series documentary “Amend” reminds an already deeply divided America that words like “unity,” “progress,” “equity,” and even “love” are only valid so long as one side of the political aisle has the sole power to define them. Ideologically, Americans are speaking two entirely different languages, a reality “Amend” puts on full display.

Netflix spared no expense in production, employing Will Smith as the narrator of the series, backed by a bevy of Hollywood hard-hitters including Helen Hunt, Samuel L. Jackson, Joseph Gorden-Levitt, Dermot Mulroney, and the star of the wildly popular Disney series “The Mandalorian,” Pedro Pascal. Producers also include most of the leading voices in the “war on language,” using activists such as Linda Sarsour and intersectionality maven Kimberly Crenshaw along with historians, civil rights lawyers, and other experts.

The overarching message of “Amend” is to replace the First Amendment rights to speech, religion, assembly, association, and the right to petition the government with an all-encompassing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection clause.” In particular, the documentary holds up the issues of racial equality, the feminist movement, LGBTQ preferences, and immigration policy as examples of how the equal protection clause can be used to revise American traditions, institutions, values, and laws.

Indeed, in his interview for “Amend,” Al Gerhardstein, the lead attorney in Obergefell v. Hodges, argues, “We founded the government a second time … that’s what the Fourteenth Amendment is.”

To understand the intent of the documentary, one has to understand how leftists use terms in ways that are foreign to most English-speaking Americans. For instance, for “Amend,” “equality” — or “equal protection under the laws” — does not mean a black man should get the same treatment in a court of law as a white man. “Equality” to leftists means that black men should not be convicted of crimes in disproportionate numbers to their representation in the overall population.

In the third installment of “Amend,” entitled “Wait,” the claim is made that black Americans still do not have equal protection under the law in the present-day United States. Cases such as Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Treyvon Martin are cited as instances of how racial minorities are being robbed of their rights.

Yet, while the Floyd case is pending, we now know the Brown case was arguably a justified use of deadly force, and the Martin case was deemed self-defense. Still, the line of argumentation for the entire documentary series is that “equal protection under the law” really means “equal outcomes under the law.”

Consider, for instance, recent statistics on incarceration. According to the latest data from the Pew Research Center, black Americans represented about 12 percent of the U.S. population in 2020, yet made up 33 percent of those incarcerated in U.S. prisons. “Equality” in this instance would demand that at least 27 percent of those prisoners be released.

Moving beyond crime to the realm of education, according to the documentary’s understanding of “equality before the laws,” blacks represented in each of the nation’s colleges and universities should number at least 12 percent.

“Equality for women,” on the other hand, to leftists means that women should overtake and control at least half of the roles traditionally held by men. In one of the more revealing scenes in the documentary, Sarsour proclaims, “I can assure you. When women get power, we’re going to make everyone’s lives better.”

While that remains to be seen, Sarsour is sure to tell the audience what she seeks: power. And, as women represent roughly 50 percent of the population, for the Fourteenth Amendment to be fulfilled, women should have 50 percent of the public positions of society.

While it is unclear what kind of “power” Sarsour and her movement seeks, “Amend” makes it clear what is required to gain power. First and foremost, and thematic throughout the episode entitled “Control,” is the notion that women must have control over their bodies — which in the documentary, means unfettered access to abortion and birth control.

To have “equal protection under the laws,” the left believes women must be unfettered from burdens like pregnancy, marriage, and family life that might hinder their access to power in the workplace and politics. Again, as with race, “equality” means absolutely proportional outcomes in life for men and women alike. If 1,000 men are admitted to Harvard, then 1,000 women must also be admitted. Something like pregnancy cannot stand in the way of achieving these equal outcomes.

Finally, the documentary’s concept of “love equality under the law” stretches the Fourteenth Amendment once more in the mission of redefining the word “love.” Smith proposes the following hypothetical: “If someone was trying to tell you what you and your partner do in your bedroom is illegal … I mean … I’d bet you’d feel some kinda way about that.”

Of course, the government does indeed have an interest in what two people decide to do in their bedroom. Thankfully, by law, husbands are not allowed to assault their wives in the bedroom or elsewhere. While a person could consent to be murdered by another person “in the bedroom,” the notion that consent was given and it was done in private does not make that act any more lawful than if it were done in public without consent.

The exclamation point to the “Amend” series concerns immigration. This episode entitled “Promise” causes the viewer with a more traditional and historic understanding of equality and justice to begin to ponder what this notion of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment might not include. To expand the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to say women can dispose of unwanted children, citizens can do anything they would like in the privacy of their bedrooms, and America shouldn’t really have meaningful national borders, one wonders, “Where does this stop?”

Truly, it wouldn’t be a leap to suppose that a foreign national considering whether to immigrate to the United States might not be horrified by “Amend,” conceptualizing the United States as a hotbed of fear and suffering instead of a land where one can freely prosper like no other place on earth.

Who would want to come to a place where men were enslaved, tortured, lynched, denied rights, and murdered in the streets by government officials that we call “police”? Who would want to come to a place where women are routinely treated as childbearing housemaids? Who would want to come to a place where you could lose your job for who you love?

Sadly, this is the America “Amend” portrays — contorting and redefining the language of liberty, freedom, and prosperity. At its heart, “Amend” amounts to a well-produced, well-acted, and well-expounded helping of propaganda for the ongoing war on language and history.

Effective propagandists are not going to forthrightly proclaim, “Release violent criminals. Murder unborn babies. Have sex with anyone at any time. Then we’ll be free.” Instead, they are going to complain of “mass incarceration,” “a woman’s control of her own body.” Insidiously, “Amend” seizes words like “equality,” “love,” and even “democracy” and transforms them from good, noble things into manifestations of destruction, and ultimately, evil.

>> the feminist movement, LGBTQ preference... can be used to revise American traditions, institutions, values, and laws.

The origin of NOW from the founder’s sister.

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37

...And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love. Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.