Telegram Group & Telegram Channel
The much-anticipated finale of Yellowstone has left many fans, especially those with conservative leanings, scratching their heads in disbelief. The series, known for its staunch portrayal of the Dutton family's relentless battle to protect their ancestral land, took an unexpected turn by having the Duttons sell their ranch back to the a Native American tribe. This plot twist isn't just a narrative decision; it's a cultural statement that directly opposes the spirit of the show, embodying the very essence of what I had called "Yellowstoning."

Yellowstoning: A Media Tactic Unveiled

My thesis on "Yellowstoning" from long before the finale aired outlines a subtle strategy where Hollywood uses aesthetics and beloved actors to draw in conservative audiences, only to serve them progressive messages under the guise of entertainment. Here's how it played out:

Aesthetics and Legacy Actors: Yellowstone attracted viewers with its breathtaking landscapes, traditional cowboy ethos, and a cast including legacy actors like Kevin Costner, whose presence harkens back to an era of simpler, more straightforward American storytelling. This was the bait.

The Woke Message: The finale, however, delivered the hook. By having the Duttons relinquish their land, the show not only subverted its central conflict but also pushed an agenda where land, symbolizing heritage and legacy, is returned to the original inhabitants, a narrative that is a clear critique of historical land acquisition and a nod to modern land rights activism.

The Metaphor for Undermining Western Civilization

This decision in the storyline can be seen as a metaphor for the broader cultural battle over the values and narratives of Western Civilization:

Legacy vs. Change: The Dutton family stood as a symbol of legacy, hard work, and the fight to maintain what one has built over generations. Their surrender of the ranch symbolizes a capitulation to modern ideologies that question the legitimacy of historical claims to land and power.

Cultural Erosion: Just as the Duttons' story ends with their land being dismantled and their gravestones mocked, it can be interpreted as a broader allegory for the perceived erosion of traditional American values and the dismantling of historical narratives by contemporary cultural movements.

The Message: By framing the end of the Dutton saga this way, the series suggests that the fight for one's heritage and land might be futile or even morally wrong in the face of historical reevaluation. It's a narrative that challenges the viewer to reconsider the ethics of land ownership and cultural dominance, themes deeply intertwined with debates on Western Civilization's past and present.

In essence, Yellowstone's finale didn't just conclude a story; it epitomized "Yellowstoning" by leading its conservative audience down a path where the aesthetics of tradition and loyalty were used to introduce and perhaps normalize progressive ideals. This twist was not just a plot development; it was a cultural statement, one that leaves fans pondering whether the entertainment they love is subtly undermining the very values it once seemed to champion.



group-telegram.com/Jack_Posobiec/54079
Create:
Last Update:

The much-anticipated finale of Yellowstone has left many fans, especially those with conservative leanings, scratching their heads in disbelief. The series, known for its staunch portrayal of the Dutton family's relentless battle to protect their ancestral land, took an unexpected turn by having the Duttons sell their ranch back to the a Native American tribe. This plot twist isn't just a narrative decision; it's a cultural statement that directly opposes the spirit of the show, embodying the very essence of what I had called "Yellowstoning."

Yellowstoning: A Media Tactic Unveiled

My thesis on "Yellowstoning" from long before the finale aired outlines a subtle strategy where Hollywood uses aesthetics and beloved actors to draw in conservative audiences, only to serve them progressive messages under the guise of entertainment. Here's how it played out:

Aesthetics and Legacy Actors: Yellowstone attracted viewers with its breathtaking landscapes, traditional cowboy ethos, and a cast including legacy actors like Kevin Costner, whose presence harkens back to an era of simpler, more straightforward American storytelling. This was the bait.

The Woke Message: The finale, however, delivered the hook. By having the Duttons relinquish their land, the show not only subverted its central conflict but also pushed an agenda where land, symbolizing heritage and legacy, is returned to the original inhabitants, a narrative that is a clear critique of historical land acquisition and a nod to modern land rights activism.

The Metaphor for Undermining Western Civilization

This decision in the storyline can be seen as a metaphor for the broader cultural battle over the values and narratives of Western Civilization:

Legacy vs. Change: The Dutton family stood as a symbol of legacy, hard work, and the fight to maintain what one has built over generations. Their surrender of the ranch symbolizes a capitulation to modern ideologies that question the legitimacy of historical claims to land and power.

Cultural Erosion: Just as the Duttons' story ends with their land being dismantled and their gravestones mocked, it can be interpreted as a broader allegory for the perceived erosion of traditional American values and the dismantling of historical narratives by contemporary cultural movements.

The Message: By framing the end of the Dutton saga this way, the series suggests that the fight for one's heritage and land might be futile or even morally wrong in the face of historical reevaluation. It's a narrative that challenges the viewer to reconsider the ethics of land ownership and cultural dominance, themes deeply intertwined with debates on Western Civilization's past and present.

In essence, Yellowstone's finale didn't just conclude a story; it epitomized "Yellowstoning" by leading its conservative audience down a path where the aesthetics of tradition and loyalty were used to introduce and perhaps normalize progressive ideals. This twist was not just a plot development; it was a cultural statement, one that leaves fans pondering whether the entertainment they love is subtly undermining the very values it once seemed to champion.

BY Jack Posobiec


Warning: Undefined variable $i in /var/www/group-telegram/post.php on line 260

Share with your friend now:
group-telegram.com/Jack_Posobiec/54079

View MORE
Open in Telegram


Telegram | DID YOU KNOW?

Date: |

Crude oil prices edged higher after tumbling on Thursday, when U.S. West Texas intermediate slid back below $110 per barrel after topping as much as $130 a barrel in recent sessions. Still, gas prices at the pump rose to fresh highs. Markets continued to grapple with the economic and corporate earnings implications relating to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. “We have a ton of uncertainty right now,” said Stephanie Link, chief investment strategist and portfolio manager at Hightower Advisors. “We’re dealing with a war, we’re dealing with inflation. We don’t know what it means to earnings.” This provided opportunity to their linked entities to offload their shares at higher prices and make significant profits at the cost of unsuspecting retail investors. At the start of 2018, the company attempted to launch an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) which would enable it to enable payments (and earn the cash that comes from doing so). The initial signals were promising, especially given Telegram’s user base is already fairly crypto-savvy. It raised an initial tranche of cash – worth more than a billion dollars – to help develop the coin before opening sales to the public. Unfortunately, third-party sales of coins bought in those initial fundraising rounds raised the ire of the SEC, which brought the hammer down on the whole operation. In 2020, officials ordered Telegram to pay a fine of $18.5 million and hand back much of the cash that it had raised. Telegram boasts 500 million users, who share information individually and in groups in relative security. But Telegram's use as a one-way broadcast channel — which followers can join but not reply to — means content from inauthentic accounts can easily reach large, captive and eager audiences.
from pl


Telegram Jack Posobiec
FROM American