The new film Angry Birds is a refreshingly honest statement about Whites in the current year. Although it received a poor critical reception, it was quite successful at the box office. This success is a testament to the persistence of healthier values in the face of left-wing cultural hegemony.
The film’s main character, a bird named Red, is intended to represent White men. Finding himself out of place in a shallow society, he is repeatedly reminded by others that he has anger issues and even sent to an anger management class. One mother even tries to shield her son, warning that “the anger might be contagious,” in a reference to current pseudo-scientific analysis of angry White men.
As in real life for many White men today, Red is faced with infuriating situations, toward which others’ lack of anger seems odd.
These include the invasion of the island by pigs, and he receives a maddening “shoot the messenger” attitude from his fellow birds on the subject. Even the two birds who agree to help him in his heroic undertakings are unbearable. Among their other faults, Chuck and Bomb spend the long journey to visit the legendary Mighty Eagle making obnoxious noises that they imagine correspond to his war cry.
The directors themselves have stated that they intended to convey the idea that anger is not necessarily a bad thing. They quote Aristotle: “Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.”
The film depicts both the wrong time to become angry – when you need to distract an enemy by flattering or confusing him instead – and the right time, namely when assaulting an enemy city.
Another interesting point regarding anger is that the anger management teacher does not exactly seem emotionally in control herself. When Red explains honestly that he did not complete an assignment because he considered it a complete waste of his time, she briefly displays an incredible rage, although she attempts to suppress it.
She also seems unable to deal with the emotions brought up by her student Terence’s romantically intended painting of the two of them, responding by suddenly dismissing the class. This is all analogous to the odd spectacle of social justice warriors accusing others of the emotional problems they themselves display.
The crowd of pigs who invade the birds’ island are of course a reference to the “refugees” currently swarming into Europe. Although initially welcomed by a naive populace, they show no respect for the natives, treating the island as if it is their property, eating in the manner pigs are often accused of, and having what seems to be a never-ending party.
They do no work except in connection with entertainment, unless we count laying explosives. By their leader’s own omission, although this is part of a sob story he tells for sympathy, they are also “very simple folk.”
There are obvious references to our own entertainment-obsessed society, one that is oblivious to danger. The birds are easily enthralled by the pigs’ trashy music and dancing, while overlooking the obvious psychopathy of the newcomers’ leader. Along with his smarmy demeanor, he shows a total lack of concern as his assistant is repeatedly subjected to bodily harm in his presence, but the birds are still all smiles.
After the eggs are stolen and the village was blown up, making it impossible for even his high-time-preference brethren to ignore the threat from the pigs, Red is suddenly thrust into a new role. The island’s judge admits that he was wrong in condemning Red and it becomes clear that everyone is now looking to him as the island’s new leader.
This may be seen as a reference to the sudden popularity of people previously dismissed as cranks, particularly nationalist parties in Europe since the start of the current wave of “refugee” invasion. It can also be interpreted as a hopeful statement for the future of alt-right figures; Western people are looking for new leaders, even if they are inexperienced, and may ask for help even from those who are not seeking political power.
One surprisingly bold statement is the reference to hate crime hoaxes. Chuck, Red’s classmate in his anger management class recites horrible poetry bemoaning the loss of a cheap piece of art. Treating it almost as if it were a living thing rather than a few pieces of garbage hastily stuck together, he calls its destruction a “hate crime” and produces a red feather, implicating Red.
Although the accusation here was actually accurate, the phrase “hate crime” along with the fact of a sensational accusation against what is essentially a White man does bring infamous cases like that of Tawana Brawley to mind. As with the real-life situation, the absurd display is met with great sympathy, in this case from the teacher.
There are other violations of the politically correct narrative here which are unrelated to race.
The pig king and especially the pompous Mighty Eagle come across as homosexual. Both not only make a great show of their emotions but also show off their bodies in a blatantly sexual manner. Both are also obese, and since neither are shown in a favorable light, their depiction is undoubtedly not just “homophobia” but also “fat-shaming”.
The depiction of war here is certainly not PC either. When the birds reach the pig city, no distinction is made between civilian and military targets, nor is any warning given before the attack. Birds are launched as if they are pieces of artillery, destroying several buildings, and one even strikes a group of musicians. Although this is not deliberate on Red’s part, the entire city is ultimately detonated. No human rights complaints are filed afterward and no one expresses bird guilt.
The closest thing to an expression of typical left-wing views on race is the depiction of the giant red bird Terence. This bird is far larger than the others, has an impressive criminal record, and is generally surly. However, he is revealed to have two unexpected artistic talents, namely painting and singing. Viewers can doubtless think of people who are large, angry, and criminally inclined, and to whom others would like to attribute artistic talents whether they have any or not.
At the end of the film, there is a song from the birds celebrating their victory. Three young birds recite three virtues they admire in their hero Red, namely bravery, humility, and angery[sic]. Two of these are in line with Western traditions, being listed as virtues in Leon Gautier’s Ten Commandments of Chivalry.
With the possible exception of humility, which can be taken as a joke, coming as it does from Mighty Eagle’s song in praise of himself, the ending song is an endorsement of values shared by the alt-right. This in line with the rest of the film, which showcases a spirit which is rising throughout the West. To steal a line from Gregory Hood, when you are faced with a threat, you defeat it, rather than taking refuge in pretty lies. Angry Birds is a great public relations success for those who share this spirit.