Originally published via Creed Speech Substack.
Having recently watched the 2024 remake of the film Speak No Evil, I thought how uncomfortable it might be for many people to watch. Whilst in the movie theatre, I imagine that many viewers could find their minds drifting to how they have let themselves and their children be incrementally poisoned, indoctrinated, misled, demoralised, abused, and dehumanised by their governments, their education institutions, their nurses, their doctors, and their religious leaders.
The past few years have been nothing short of a species level event as an all out assault on our bodies, minds, beliefs, morals, familial bonds, and our humanity.
There are two meanings to this proverb. One is ‘ignoring bad behaviour or wrongdoing’ and the other is an instruction to avoid dwelling on or engaging with negative or harmful thoughts and actions.
The phrase ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’ is derived from Buddhist teachings of the three wise monkeys, possibly dating back to at least the first century BC. These three monkeys are a visual maxim, symbolising the Buddhist principle “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”. The three monkeys are:
Mizaru, who covers his eyes and “sees no evil.”
Kikazaru, who covers his ears and “hears no evil.”
Iwazaru, who covers his mouth and “speaks no evil.”
The Buddhist teachings said that if we do not hear, see or speak evil, we ourselves shall be spared from evil. A 17th century carving over a door of a stable of the Tōshō-gū shrine in Nikkō, Japan popularised his visual maxim. Now, the three wise monkeys are frequently depicted in sculptures, paintings, and other forms of art across cultures.
When the phrase ‘‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’ came over to the West, the meaning of the phrase changed considerably. In the West, the phrase is used to express the deliberate ignoring of bad behaviour or wrongdoing. When the phrase is used in this context it has the same meaning as the phrase ‘turn a blind eye’.
We shall focus on the latter meaning of the proverb for the sake of this article.
**Mini Spoilers**
An American family – Mother, Father, and daughter, are befriended on holiday in Italy by a British couple and their mute son (or so they claim). Whilst the American family is reserved, introverted, overly polite, and cautious, the British couple are loud, obnoxious, and extroverted.
From the initial conversation starter made by James McAvoy’s (British) character ‘Paddy’, the Americans – ‘Ben’ and ‘Louise’, are clearly at unease with the recklessness of the Brits, as well as how they ridicule and belittle other hotel guests in public for laughs. Ben and Louise continually exchange nervous looks but ultimately let it all slide. After exchanging contact details with Paddy and his wife Ciara, they return to their home in London, pondering an invitation to visit the British couple at their country home in Devon, England.
Here is the first scene when they all meet in the streets of Italy, where Paddy shows off his motorbike rental before pressuring Ben and Louise to take their eager daughter for a spin, riding pillion with no helmets. With a stranger who they have just met minutes ago.
Paddy then speeds off with Ben and Louise’s daughter Agnes, followed by the sound of brakes screeching and tires skidding in the distance.
The film is constantly challenging the notion of how well meaning people so often tolerate other people’s bad behaviour; even when it is unacceptable, immoral, overreaching, or wholly inappropriate.
Is the reason for people’s tolerance of the intolerable borne out of our modern day aversion to confrontation? Out of politeness and fear of reprisals?
Back in their London home, there is a scene showing a delighted Ben reading out a written invitation from Paddy and Ciara. Ben pushes Louise for their family to go for “A long weekend of Devon air, fresh food and long walks.” Louise has her reservations, noting that “It’s maybe a bit long to spend with people we barely know.”
Yet off they go anyway.
A series of increasingly uncomfortable events ensue upon arrival, from Louise (a pescatarian) being cajoled and peer pressured into eating goose meat, to the aggressive behaviour of Paddy towards his ‘son’, as well as more ritualistic humiliation across sports, dinners, and other activities.
The ante is being upped in every scene, challenging Ben and Louise to say something, to do something. In private, Louise encourages Ben to man-up and stop being so weak in allowing them to be mistreated. Ben continues to make excuses for Paddy and Ciara’s behaviour, citing cultural differences and other stretches of the imagination.
Does this sound familiar? Think of all the excuses you will have heard made by the sheeple defending the actions of tyrants over the past few years. When someone does not wish to see evil, they instead see justification. When they do not wish to speak of evil, they speak of misinformation and disinformation. When they do not wish to hear of evil, they label the source as a conspiracy theory.
Examples:
In the film, the American couple eventually start to crack, challenging the behaviour of the British couple. Although Paddy always has a clever answer, a misdirection, or a sob story, which appeals to the empathy and good nature of Ben and Louise.
The pinnacle of this theme is reached when Louise finds their daughter Agnes asleep in the bed of Paddy and Ciara. After snatching Agnes up, Louise explains to Ben what happened and demands they go home.
The following morning this exchange takes place:
Paddy: “Who? What?”
Louise: “Our daughter was in your bed.”
Paddy: “Yes, I’m sorry. Okay?”
Louise: “Ciara?”
Ciara: “Paddy was asleep for the whole thing. That’s my fault, okay?”
Louise: “Well, I’m-I’m sorry, but-but that is crossing a line. I mean, th-that is not okay.”
Ciara: “Uh, it’s my fault. I’m sorry. I’m-I’m sorry… Look, I know I can be overprotective as a mother.
Louise: “Wh-What does that have to do with it?”
Ciara: “We had a baby daughter. Mary. And, um, she died at 12 weeks of a cot death. We would’ve been the perfect family. So hearing Agnes crying, it just… (sobs softly) Um, so, she was just…she-she was-She kept calling for you, and-and you didn’t come, and she was beside herself, scratching herself and…Well, and you weren’t there, so…Look, you-you know how hard it is trying to decide when to intervene and when to give them space, and I’m… I’m so sorry if I got it wrong. I’m so sorry.”
Louise: “Ciara. I didn’t know.”
The story of the cot death is all lies and manipulation. Story (narrative) is powerful. Effective narratives can elicit an emotional response in people, turning something that was previously unthinkable to them, into suddenly being understood and tolerated.
The utterance of the well-known phrase “crossing a line” is often an internalised concept of known boundaries to the self – what is acceptable or unacceptable. Saying it out loud is a rare thing to behold, as it implies the severity of the situation. How often have you wondered about when and how and why a critical mass of people will see that lines have been crossed? As time passes, have you wondered if there even is a line in the sand or a hill to die on for most people?
Appealing to a person’s emotions, to their good faith, is in part, how and why a majority of people worldwide have gone along with the evil of the twenty-twenties to date. When their government spokespeople and captured media talking heads tell them that something is for the greater good, they will rollover. If guilted into ritualistic humiliation, but with an opportunity to virtue signal for the perceived greater good, they will acquiesce.
Shortly after the aforementioned scene in the film, events transpire that lead to Paddy and Ciara taking the masks and the gloves off, as they can no longer maintain their web of lies.
In our real world, many illusions that have been costly and resource draining to maintain are starting to crumble, which is why we are seeing western governments become full-on totalitarian police states. We must once again cite Orwell:
“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.”
I won’t go into the details of the violent showdown and how it all plays out at the end of the film. It is not as harrowing as the original Danish release of 2022.
The most powerful line in the 2024 release is uttered by McAvoy’s character Paddy, as a terrified and bewildered Ben and Louise frantically try to make sense of it all, asking “why are you doing this?”
To which Paddy replies:
“Because you let us.”
Perhaps that can be crafted as a suitable response next time an inquiring mind taps you up for conspiracy realities, as they struggle to conceptually reframe their entire world-view.
Sure, you can tell them that X,Y,Z globalist agendas are designed to poison us, to kill us, to depopulate us, to control us, to impoverish us, and to enslave us.
Still, the newcomer who you are welcoming to reality will ask “but why?! why!? Why would they do this????”
The simplest answer, is “because we let them.”
If this piece resonated with you, check out my other articles in this writing style – reviewing dystopia, genocide, and other dark themes in film, then drawing comparisons to the real world as moral takeaways, warnings, prophetic storytelling, and predictive programming…
Ignoring Genocide All Around Us –The Zone of Interest [film] gives an insightful and unsettling look at the normalisation of horrors.
Sense Offenders – Reviewing the 2002 movie Equilibrium
An Exploration of Predictive Programming in Film
Kill Yourself to Save The Earth: ‘Humane’ Film Review
Predictive Programming Roundup in Film: Journalists Assassinated and US Civil War
Hollywood Predictive Programming: White Supremacy and Bioterrorism
Bitcoin address:
bc1p0eujhumczzeh06t40fn9lz6n6z72c5zrcy0are25dhwk7kew8hwq2tmyqj
Solana address:
Ds6QpUxaWB6bJ8WF4KAazbuV25ZhPRdZh4q4BXutj4Ec
Ethereum address:
0x42A7FA91766a46D42b13d5a56dC5B01c153F1177
Monero address:
86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6
