Futility in warning against board game censorship.

A couple years back, I argued about censorship in gaming, over a concern with self-censorship of one piece of artwork from Gloom of Kilforth. I drew parallels to other games like Five Tribes and Draco Magi.

bgg comments
Source

But you all wouldn’t listen. You all thought I was over-exaggerating. You all thought I was being overdramatic. Well, you were all wrong. There will be no Scramble For Africa.

It’s coming to this, and it’s only going to get worse. It’s going to get worse because ‘reeing’ over stuff like this has become normalized. Saying it shouldn’t be made because it’s “insensitive” has become normalized. And when something like this becomes normalized, well, there are plenty of board games about fighting against communism either politically (Twilight Struggle) or militarily (take your wargame pick from WWII and on), or anything themed against Orwellian-like stuff like Euphoria.

Guess this all means board games utilizing the theme of colonialism are no longer ok. Unlike games out there where you can play fantasy characters who obliterate their enemies with swords, arrows, and magic; or space 4x games where you can obliterate ships and people and aliens by the thousands; or wargames where you can kill whoever from whatever side; or dungeon-crawlers where, you know. Quite frankly, I’m amazed at this point that Endeavor managed to get released without caving in to similar outcries (a game I’m glad to have in my collection).

bq-5c91c59a3a6d4

Solid standards, with no ounce of hypocrisy or irony to be found. I’d argue more, but it’s already all been said. And what’s the point? Most of those who disagree won’t listen to reason anyway. Because feelings outweigh facts.

bq-5c6306dcd0411

 

Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is pissing me off.

“Being humiliated doesn’t bother me that much; I’ve been raised on humility.  It’s the risk of not being humiliated enough that worries me.”

— The Anomalous Host

There are times in my life, amidst my searching for jobs and thinking about my purpose in life, I start to reflect on the things I enjoy the most in life.

I enjoy watching movies and shows, yet find many of the films and shows today lacking in what I enjoy seeing.  In fact, most movies and shows today contain things that I find to be downright stupid and insulting, just like the viewers they were intended for.

I enjoy board games, yet I have a hard time remaining focused on creating my own (same applies to video games).

I enjoy lectures on certain topics, but I find myself unwilling to participate in-person (ie outside of typing) because I have a hard time getting my words straight and not sounding like an idiot when reading from a script.  I’ve tried making sound recordings in the past, and I never end up liking the way I sound.  And when I try to wing-it (not using a script), I tend not to be all that focused, and I wander around the topic more than I do on my average blog post.  And on top of all that, I find my own voice a bit annoying.  I frequently get brain farts and draw a blank and wander to some other subject when I try making video responses.  That is, unless I go by a script.  And I’ve learned that I can’t just talk what I write the way I’ve written it.  It doesn’t sound natural for starters.  And even worse, I have a hard time using the right tone of voice for certain words and sentences when I’m reading from a script.  Hence to say I would be terrible at acting on stage.

I tried writing a book a couple times, and after reaching 100 pages and looking back on it, despite some sections I found to be good, most of it just seemed like trash.

I know putting an actual voice out there could let me be more widely known; but even assuming I could make a decent video and make it sound the way I want (with the right tone and emphasis on the right words and the right sentences), there’s the other problem to consider.  What if the video, successful or not, ends up getting me the sort of attention I don’t want?  What if it makes me lose any chance of having a decent job in the workforce?  What if the thought-control fanatics decide that I’m not someone capable of separating my personal political/theological/philosophical thoughts from the job (which I know I’m capable of doing, because I’ve done so successfully in the past)?  What if they don’t care (most likely)?  It’s hypocritical, when considering the type of people out there who do manage to get employed, who seem less capable of keeping their emotions and personal feelings in check than me; but that’s the reality of things.

On the other hand, it’s not like I want to live forever.  What kind of a man would I be if I were to let fear of backlash from those more rich and powerful and numerous be enough to silence a voice that has legit concerns and grievances about the state of things?  What kind of man would I be if I didn’t throw my hat into the ring to challenge their ideals, and challenge them to do the same?  They can kill the idealist, but they can’t kill the idea.

I wouldn’t feel the urge to do this if those I follow, those I respect, those I rely on for news/opinions/information didn’t say something I know is wrong.  I wouldn’t feel the urge if I didn’t felt I know better than them on that topic.  With Andrew Klavan bitching about white nationalism and confusing it for white supremacy, and Ben Shapiro seeming to have misconceptions regarding what Julian Assange has done in the past (plus Shapiro is very overrated), and Michael Knowles having a piss-poor argument against the use of marijuana.  So I’m going to respond, in an audio/video format.  I just don’t know if this is going to turn into a regular thing or not, especially since I know for a fact I don’t sound as great in reality as I envision myself in my head (which I guess makes me possess an alter-ego when I’m typing).  Because it’s really fucking hard for me to do this.

Ultimately, when I think back on the past, the thing I find I’ve always enjoyed doing the most, from middle school and onwards, is critiquing critics, challenging the views and opinions of others, and daring them to attack mine.  This aggressive nature has proved a bountiful source of knowledge that has changed my outlook on life at times, especially when someone eventually comes along and actually manages to destroy a position I’ve held for years.  It’s liberating, but also dangerous.  I always find myself walking that fine line between wanting a debate for the sake of challenging the opinions of others and encouraging them to do the same to me; and forming a pride-filled ego making me think I’m better than them.  It’s easy to fall into that trap, and I have done so on occasion.  But if it didn’t come with its own set of risks, what fun would that be?

So… here I go:

Text response:

@Klavan You either don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re completely ignorant as to what white nationalism actually is; or you do know what you’re talking about, and thus you’re not as reasonable and level-headed of a man as I thought you were. I’m hoping for the former, because that can be forgivable in the long-run.

“I think white nationalism is bad because it’s stupid and wrong to make moral judgments about people according to their race rather than by their actions, ok. […] You don’t violate rule 1 because you don’t want it done to you. The golden rule. Everybody knows he’s an individual responsible for himself. He’s not responsible to everybody who’s the same color he is, whether he comes from the same country he is. You know, you can’t say, ‘Oh, white people held slaves, therefore you’re responsible because you have the same color as those white people.’ And it wasn’t white people holding slaves, it was some white people holding slaves, while other white people of course were fighting to free them. You can’t say, ‘Black people commit crimes, black people are muggers,’ because it’s some black people, it’s not the guy you’re talking to at that moment. He feels himself as an individual, you want to feel yourself as an individual, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Breaking rule 1 is wrong.”

First of all, that’s whole statement is made under the partial assumption that race does not equal causation when it comes to general crimes/personalities/IQ, etc. There have been many books written by those holding phd’s which state otherwise, from books like The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray in 1994, to A Troublesome Inheritance by Wade in 2015, to The Diversity Delusion by Mac Donald in 2018. Average IQ has been linked by genetics. It’s not the only factor, but it is a big enough one to where it can’t be ignored. And considering that blacks commit considerably more crime on average compared to whites (statistics by government and non-government sources support this), I’d say there’s enough reason to believe that having a desire for nationalities based on race isn’t exactly a bad thing, that segregation has been given a bit of a bad rap over the years, though it’s ironically making a return by those who tout inclusion.

Second of all, regarding the other part of that assumption, the idea that white nationalism (or even black nationalism, brown nationalism, etc.) is bad because it breaks the golden rule of “do unto others” and sacrificing the notion of individualism is false. White nationalism is the idea that white people want to be proud of their race and their accomplishments (they are responsible for a great many inventions, from various technologies to the U.S. Constitution), and have whites remain. To have white groups, to have white towns, etc. Many whites only want to hang out with whites because they have more in common with them on both a physical and mental level (for those who argue how looks aren’t everything, you would second-guess yourself if you took into consideration what kind of actors and actresses have been the most popular and the most in-demand over the many decades, not to mention the porn factor). And you can’t convince me that black people don’t feel the exact same way, in general. That’s not to say we should be against interracial relations, I’d imagine those people would want to have their own community to thrive in as well. But not at the expense of those wanting racial purity in their groups and their communities.

You say white nationalism breaks rule 1. I say anti-nationalism break rule 1, because white nationalists respect the decisions of other races to be themselves in their own communities, and would expect those communities to do the same for white communities. White nationalism doesn’t break the golden rule, it encourages the golden rule. Don’t confuse white nationalism with white supremacy. Despite what those ass-hats in the MSM may say, those are two very different ideologies.

Video/audio response:

Critique of Black Pilled’s video regarding Arbuckle, and the sexual nature of films.

I gave Black Pilled an opportunity to respond to my comments on his video.  He hasn’t.  It could be because he gets so flooded with comments he doesn’t have time to read them all (understandable), or that he doesn’t care enough, not even on Gab.com.  I said I would post my youtube response on my blog site if he didn’t respond.  So that’s what I’m doing.  The below paragraphs were the comments I left on his video.  I primarily critique the first 8 minutes of the video, “Pawnbreaking Our Culture.”

This is the first video you’ve made that I take issue with, particularly the righteous attitude that, while admirable at points, can become misguided. I challenge your standards of decency.

First off, the whole thing about sexual situations being alluded to in the 40s, and even in the 50s, rather than being shown. This statement seems to be made under the assumption that these sexual situations weren’t anymore explicit prior to that time period. This is not the case. In 1915, that is when the first stag films were being made. Granted, it was more of an underground market where you had to go to “gentlemen’s clubs” to see them, but they were there. And they continued to be in circulation all the way through the 1960s until porn decided to go a little more mainstream in the 70s. There’s always been an audience for it. It was only inevitable that audiences would want to see this sort of thing in more mainstream films. The problem was that, back then, there wasn’t a rating system. There wasn’t anything to give warning as to what they were about to see at the cinema. It wasn’t until the MPAA was formed in the 60s that a rating system was setup.

And that whole thing of child porn as you call it, with 1978’s “Pretty Baby,” which I haven’t seen yet (but thanks for giving me knowledge of another film to check out), you also went too far down the road for when this was a thing. There is a film called “Child Bride” from 1938, which beat out Pretty Baby by 40 years. And it did so under the guise of being an independent “educational” film to warn of the dangers of child marriage (which was still sort of a thing back then in some areas). The film shows a girl swimming completely nude, with not much left to the imagination (you see tits and ass in all their glory). The actress, Shirley Olivia Mills, was also 12 years old at the time the film was made. And in her later years, people were coming up to her asking about her being exploited for that film. But the thing is, to her dying day, she claimed she never was, and never felt exploited, at all, during the entire filming endeavor. Not even during the controversial swimming scene. In fact, she felt she was getting more harassed and exploited by the people who wanted her to admit she was exploited during filming. In any case, that kicks you theory of women and girls being “exploited” during the 60s and onwards at the latest right in the keister.

It also doesn’t seem like you’re too familiar with the time period that many would call the Jazz Age of cinema (let alone some silent films like Intolerance which also had its fair share of topless women), which was basically between 1927 and 1934, when sound went mainstream. There were several films that not only went a bit far with female nudity (the last one of the era likely being 1934’s Tarzan and his Mate, which also had a nude swimming scene, shot underwater), but also had films about women using their sensuality to exploit men. The main example of the latter can be found with the 1933 film Baby Face, which is all about a woman sleeping her way to the top of the corporate ladder with the goal of gaining wealth.

And when Will Hays (who’s arm was basically twisted by Joseph Breen, and the government along with religious groups) finally got the Hay’s Code to be enforced in 1934, those films depicting women who were capable of doing that largely went away. That subject matter was off-limits. And plenty of films suffered for it because that subject matter was too risque. For example, 1932’s Rain had Joan Crawford’s character criticizing the nature of the Catholic church, how they’re too narrow minded and not as caring of what other people feel as they claim (in that they rely too much on the “my way or the highway” mentality without taking other factors into consideration; it’s an argument for how context can change the appropriate answer/response). The Hay’s code prohibited more than just sexual decency and dress codes and foul language, it prohibited forms of criticism.

And newsflash, an argument can be made for pornography being a form of art. An easy example to support such an argument can be found in the film Shame, directed by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender, from 2011, about a man whose sexual addiction harms his ability to connect with others on a deep emotional level, making him incapable of forming a bond that can lead to love. And this is shown through the sexual acts, how he is disconnected from such relationships during those acts, contrasted with the one time where he tries to have a serious relationship with someone during the act of lovemaking. Sex scenes, when filmed correctly, can be used as character and plot development, let alone for metaphorical/thematic purposes. It’s no different than the argument that a film like The Passion of the Christ can use acts of violence (which many would dismiss as torture porn) to make such points. The way some cause violence, how some enjoy it, how some are revolted by it, how the blood symbolizes the washing away of humanity’s sins, and thus much must be shed in order to cleanse the world of those sins. It’s all about the context, and a simple dismissal of the idea that porn (either sexual or violent) should never be allowed because it has no artistic merit and will lead to a degeneration of society is complete and utter bullshit.

This isn’t to make an excuse for cast and crew who acted depraved behind the scenes by sexually exploiting some member of the cast. Of course those people should be decried for those acts. Of course some form of punishment should be had towards them for doing that. But that doesn’t mean that automatically applies to every cast or crew member of every film that has “pornographic” depictions. As much as you would hate to believe this, sometimes these films are made without any ruckuss or unwanted exploitation behind the scenes. But many wouldn’t want to accept that possibility, which is why this whole Michael Jackson “Leaving Neverland” condemnation is a thing, which is literally kicking a dead horse. Go watch Razorfist’s videos which debunk that bullshit.

This isn’t a shift in the culture, this is culture being let loose from restrictions and letting people have what they want on the big screen. Considering how much the mid-late 30s all the way to the early 60s deprived audiences of stuff they were starting to get during the pre-Hays code days, it’s no wonder this whole “pornographic” era as you call it of the late 60s to the 70s exploded when it did. People were sick of being hindered. It’s especially infuriated considering how often the Catholics, those who called for decency in cinema, were the ones banging the kiddies behind the scenes (roughly 18% of Catholic priests from what I understand). Society didn’t become depraved, it was always depraved. And if that’s not enough of a reality check for you, consider that the legal age of marriage during the 1880s was as young as 10 years. That’s right, during the 1880s, it was legal to marry a 10 year old.

Regarding the alleged rape of Virginia Rappe by Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, you appear to state that incident under the impression that that is exactly how it happened. And I call bullshit on that too. There are at least 2 books written on the subject that go in-depth with the coverage of all that, along with the historical context surrounding the incident. “The Day the Laughter Stopped” by David Yallop (1976), and “Room {1219}” by Greg Merritt (2013), which lay out a convincing case that Arbuckle didn’t rape Virginia, that it’s far-fetched at best that he did. Considering how Virginia’s “friend” Maude Delmont was the main person who made that claim in the first place, and has been known to blackmail rich men in the past for their money, and likely made that claim for the sake of blackmailing Arbuckle, and considering the prosecution didn’t think her a solid enough witness to have as a witness during the 3 separate trials (the first 2 were mistrials, the 3rd had Arbuckle acquitted), that’s already enough to cast doubt on the whole incident. And when Arbuckle was finally acquitted, not only did the jury acquit him, but they also wrote a statement which basically stated that “Acquittal is not good enough for Arbuckle.” In that he deserved more than acquittal. He deserved apologies from everyone involved, and maybe even compensation for having his name and finances dragged through the muck during this whole ordeal, especially by both the papers (mainly by William Randolph Hearst) and the religious organizations. But he didn’t get that. Even during the time of the trial, Hollywood was looking to make an example out of Arbuckle to sooth the mobs who wanted something done about the controversies that were coming out about Hollywood at the time. Which involved deaths, murders, drugs, orgies, and booze (which was outlawed due to prohibition at the time). And after the trial, they made Arbuckle’s life hell. He couldn’t get any real acting gigs after that, and his career was finished, despite the not guilty verdict. Quite the justice system we have hear, especially when someone like you, in this day and age, is still willing to give the dead guy shit about it when it’s more likely he didn’t do it. Do some friggin’ research before making statements like that why don’t you? The only people who were bribed were the studios and William Hays, who was approached by some executives from Paramount studios to get him to announce Arbuckle being blacklisted from Hollywood.

As for the religious organizations bringing pressure on Hollywood to force them to implement the Hay’s code, it’s not that simple. You’re leaving out a huge chunk of context. The Great Depression was in swing during that time period, leaving many without much cash in hand. Hollywood was able to keep afloat of this for a while, but eventually even they started to feel the financial burn, with less people (and thus less cash) flowing into the cinemas. Combine this with the fact that the Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in 1915, that films were not protected by the first amendment, and Hollywood would be under pressure not just from religious organizations for alleged moral reasons, but also from federal and state forces which could shut them down at their leisure. Especially when many in government were of a religious influence and had connections with these religious groups. So it wasn’t just the pressure from those arguing for morality, it wasn’t just pressure from federal and local governments, it was also the pressure of losing money by having less customers who were less willing (if not altogether unable) to shell out cash to see films because there wasn’t much cash to go around during the Great Depression. Not to mention the guy who was putting pressure on Hays himself to implement this code, Joseph Breene, who arguably had more influence than Hays did in his position, was a religious person himself who was practically in bed with the religious organizations. Hay’s didn’t force the film industry to follow the code because most audiences demanded it, Hay’s convinced them to do so in order for the film industry to survive. It was for both monetary reasons, and to avoid the risk of the government coming in and regulating films themselves, which they attempted to do at earlier points in history.

Bottom line, both the Catholics and Jews are assholes. It was just the Catholics who were assholes first.

New Zealand: What the hell is going on?

“You just can’t — you can’t immediately discount this.  The left is this insane, they are this crazy.”

Rush Limbaugh

Questions

So several days ago a mass shooting took place in New Zealand and a couple mosques.  The shooter live-streamed the first mosque shooting, and the feed cut off as he was driving to the 2nd mosque.

The response was predictable from the media, both in New Zealand, and in the United States.  They have gun control laws in New Zealand, so the next step is to ban guns altogether (though I do wonder if the guns the shooter used were legal in the first place).  Trump is blamed, for some reason.  And there’s the whole 78 page manifesto the shooter allegedly wrote that justified his actions.  And last but not least, whites are condemned (including Australian whites, since the shooter is Australian), while the muslims are protected and pitied, which always tends to happen regardless of whether its muslims getting killed, or muslims killing non-muslims.

I was ready to rant and rave about all this, but I restrained myself.  I needed time to think about the whole thing before venting.  As it turns out, that was the right call to make.  Because the whole thing, at least as far as the live-streamed video is concerned, seems to be one big false-flag operation.  The video is a fraud.  Real people weren’t killed on that video.  We’ve been had.

Now before you go off on me in a, “How dare you sir!” type of manner, hear me out.  I was skeptical about these claims of the video being faked myself.  And yeah, I actually managed to download a copy of the nearly 17 minute video before it was taken down.  And I watched it.  And something about it seemed off, but I didn’t feel the need to analyze it too closely.  As for my initial emotional reaction to it, I’ll get to that later.  But anyway, I wasn’t convinced it was fake until it was pointed out how blatantly fake it really is.  From a video uploaded to BitChute by trevorlyman.  He points out how bullet casings were literally disappearing mid-air (indicating they were added in via CG or something).  The way he took out these two groups of people at the back-end of the mosque.  No bullet holes in the walls (let alone arterial spray).  And that at least half of these bodies are mannequins.  After seeing the video again with his analysis in-mind, I say that conclusion is the only plausible one.  It’s a fake.  We’ve been had.

Doing my own personal analysis afterwards, I did notice how peculiar that whole thing is regarding the disappearing bullet casings.  While he’s indoors, the casings are definitely flying onto the floor and stay there.  Those seem real.  But when he picks up the magazine that was in the building lying on the floor before the shooter even entered the building, and uses it to fire outside, those are the bullet shells that disappear in mid-air.  The rest seem to have real shell casings that were basically blanks (either that or they fire rubber rounds, or do some sort of air-soft action).  And even if we disregard the whole bullet casing issue, there’s no way a shotgun blast wouldn’t leave a tone of blood on the white tile the first 2 victims were initially on when they get blasted.  The blood doesn’t appear until later in the video, like they slit open a blood pack, similar to what they do in professional wrestling except it looks more real in wrestling.

Even if one of those things could be explained away, there’s too much wrong with this video to make it believable for those who actually analyze it.  Which begs the question: if that video was staged, then where the hell did those 50 bodies come from that’s being reported in the news?  Answers to that are likely not to be found if New Zealand gets their way and keeps not only the video of the actual shooting banned (and arresting anyone who possesses it), but keeps everyone in the dark by banning access to 4chan, 8chan, Bitchute, ZeroHedge, and Dissenter.  And yet, Facebook isn’t listed among one of those sites they seem to want to ban, despite the fact the video was initially “livestreamed” on Facebook (even if it was more likely this “livestream” was just streaming a pre-recorded video).  It stinks of making it officially impossible for the public to analyze the video for themselves under the guise of emotions and morality, while likely doing so to keep the false flag operation running.






Even if it was Real

Here’s the thing though.  Whether the video was real or not, the response to it is very much real, and is done with an intent.  The cries for the victims.  The sympathy for the muslims.  The backlash against white people and, somehow, to Donald Trump.  And the calls for banning guns, of course.  Even though it was one or two people with a gun that drove off the shooter from the 2nd mosque, something I don’t think we’re going to get the actual details on, especially when there wasn’t a livestream of that portion of the incident.

So here’s how I felt about the whole thing when I initially saw the video and initially thought it was real (despite some aspects of the video that seemed iffy to me, making be a tad bit reluctant to view it as legit, but not enough to stop me from buying into it on a first watch).  Not a goddamn thing.  I didn’t feel any sympathy for these people getting blasted.  And I especially didn’t feel like donating to some muslim victim’s clause like Paul Joseph Watson suggested in his video response to the whole thing.  It felt like a “what goes around comes around” sort of thing.  Considering how often fucking radical muslims tend to do massacres like this frequently, yet no calls to action or even shame are done towards them, at least not in the MSM.  Except for Senator Fraser Anning.

And he’s already getting backlash for those remarks.

Does anyone else find it strange that muslim attacks against virtually anyone else, whether it’s another religious group or a non-religious group, or even a gay group, doesn’t tend to get this kind of attention, and this kind of call for blaming the attackers?  I’ve become so sick of the hypocrisy that I wouldn’t shed a tear if the same fucking thing happened to a bunch of muslims.  As in actually happened, with no false flags.

bq-5c8d16e423742bq-5c8ce82f92857bq-5c877320bec55bq-5c313309ae045

bq-5c8ca1f198309

bq-5c8ccb746abe1

bq-5c8c6ba2e7919

 

Muslims have gained too many priveleges in our society, the kind that isn’t much different from the priveleges that white people had during the days of racism (from the 1960s and earlier), and in many films depicting such.  The media is playing into the very narrative this “shooter’s” manifesto stated it wanted them to play.  Blaming Trump, pewdiepie, Candace Owens, and accelerating a civil war between muslims and nationalists.  And I honestly can’t say I entirely disagree with that idea, all things considered.  Especially if every shooting that happens, even those stopped from someone carrying a concealed firearm, only seems to serve as another reason to promote gun control and gun bans.

I’m sick of that flawed reasoning, I’m sick of the hypocrisy, I’m sick of people ignoring facts, I’m sick of the muslim privilege, and I’m sick of the calls for gun control.  Fuck radical muslims, and fuck the MSM.

bq-5c8cff02e5256

c8a750cd2f128a6df897c76820c8f7638660c71f24f6103fe21b7b4db4d8aa03

When you can’t avoid political diatribes.

Stop being reasonable. Start being rational.

Stefan Molyneux

So as some of you may know, I have been following and listening to Slaughterfilm for some time.  Actually, I’ve been following them since September 2012.  Over 6 years.  That’s about as long as I followed and watched WWE (2002-2008).  Well, that’s ending.  And, you guessed it, it’s for political reasons.  Which brings up the question, “Am I allowing politics to rule my life?  Am I allowing politics to define me?  Are my politics making me unreasonable?”

When it comes to all that, I don’t know.  I guess that would depend on how much influence politics has on one’s life, and how much influence politics should have on one’s life.  Obviously there should be some influence, otherwise what’s the point of voting?  What’s the point of being educated on those you elect to represent you?  To some extent, everyone wants their beliefs and way of life (or at least the way they believe society should be) to be the norm, let alone be accepted.  A way of life that they not only wish themselves and others to live, but also to be represented culturally, such as in film and literature.  Because they believe their way, or at least some ways, are better than other ways.  In fact, you can go further.  Other ways are dangerous enough to threaten their way of life, and the ways of other lifestyles.  So it’s only natural to bring up defenses against those alternative ways, lest you don’t believe them to be a threat, or better yet, lest you believe their way to be superior to the one you’re currently living.

This can come in various forms.  The form of government (Democracy, Republic, Democratic-Republic, Communist, Totalitarian, Anarchist, etc), the economic system to keep it running (Capitalist, Socialist, something else), and the culture that keeps it together (nationalism, internationalism, multiculturalism).  The primary focus of this blog post will be more on the cultural aspect, the culture I have chosen to follow, what I identify as, how it influences me today, and why it puts me enough at odds with a horror podcast that I have followed for years to the point where I no longer will follow them.

In the past, with schooling and such, I was raised to be multiculturalist.  You know, the melting pot and all that.  That America is a nation of free speech, and independence.  A form of government and way of life that it offers freely to any other country that will accept it.  A nation that at one point prided itself on free speech and independence, prided itself on having liberty and justice for all.  And just to make sure we’re clear on what “liberty” is:

The condition of being free from restriction or control.

The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.

Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

And just to make sure we’re clear on “justice”:

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

So of course we would want that for everyone.  I don’t see any problem with that.  It all sounds great.

At least on the surface.

But there are a few issues that have grown in America (and have arguably been around since its inception) that make those ideas seem impossible to achieve.  Liberty and Justice can be at odds with each other on occasion.  For instance, if one is free from restrictions and control, that theoretically makes them free to do just about anything they please.  There’s the safe stuff: playing games, watching films, small-talk with others, doing various activities such as hiking, riding horses, etc.  But when those lack of restrictions and control makes one capable of doing activities at the expense of others, such as murdering someone, raping someone, stealing from someone; well then that is when justice is usually demanded.  And justice would normally involve the removal of certain liberties.  Paying a fine for the theft, serving jailtime (and thus severely restricting if not altogether eliminating the liberties one possessed).  After all, one can utilize their liberties to take away the liberties of others.  Justice does the same.  Ideally, justice exists to dissuade those from acting in such a way as to utilize their liberties to remove the liberties of others.  In practice, justice tends to become corrupted,  either occasionally, frequently, maybe even inevitably.

While these may be perfect ideals, we live in an imperfect world.  We are imperfect, so it should come as no surprise that our rulers and those we elect to uphold justice are also imperfect.  We can only hope to do the best we can with a form of government and economy that is the least susceptible to corruption until we learn to live by those ideals of liberty and justice that we hold so dear.

That is why we are not ready for a multiculturalist society.  Because cultures have a habit of imposing themselves on others, and thus attempt to use their liberties to remove the liberties of other cultures.  In fact, a multiculturalist society tends to give birth to the idea that a good society is one without any culture at all.  This is wrong for a number of reasons.  Firstly, liberty promotes the idea of not only an individual with his own wants/desires, but also of the idea that each independent and unique individual is capable of getting along with each other while maintaining their identity/beliefs/culture.  And you’ll have to forgive me ladies; I’m in no mood to bother including “she” or “her” in my sentences anymore than the original Star Trek series had time for it with the saying, “Where no man has gone before,” compared to the lesser TNG saying, “Where no one has gone before,” because why the fuck should humanity care if humans aren’t the ones going somewhere?  That being said, it’s a few certain episodes from Star Trek: The Next Generation, a show created as the result of writers/producers/directors/actors living in a nationalist society with its own unique culture and beliefs.  For those who aren’t familiar with it, that’s fine.  I aim to demonstrate.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, there are a few episodes dedicated to the threat of an alien faction known as the Borg.  They are a society with no identity, with no individualism, and arguably without a culture.  They are of the hive mind, something that we have been making fun of as of late at the expense of social justice warriors, by calling them NPCs (non-player-characters).  They each share the same identity, the same information (ie memories), and the same purpose.  They don’t act individually, but collectively.  And that purpose is to assimilate all other societies for the sake of assimilating their culture into their own.  But no matter how many they assimilate for information and advancement, their cause never changes.  They ultimately never evolve outside of technological advancement.  They never come to a point where they are satisfied as they are, with the knowledge they have, to live independently of everyone else.  And ultimately, they never really grow, and never really learn, outside of adapting to warfare.  Like with Invasion of the Body Snatchers, to them, it’s the race that’s important, not the individual.

Troi: We’re not dealing with an individual mind. They don’t have a single leader. It’s the collective minds of all of them.

Picard: That would have definite advantages.

Troi: Yes, a single leader can make mistakes which is far less likely in the combined whole.

 

 

The Borg is the ultimate user.  They are unlike any threat your Federation has ever faced.  They’re not interested in political conquest, wealth, or power as you know it.  They’re simply interested in your ship, your technology.  They have identified it as something they can consume.

— Q

 

From the look of it, the Borg are born as a biological life form. It seems that almost immediately after birth, they begin artificial implants. Apparently, the Borg have developed the technology to link artificial intelligence directly into the humanoid brain.

— Riker

Like getting kids indoctrinated into leftist schools at as early an age as possible.

 

When the Borg destroyed my world, my people were scattered throughout the universe. We survived – as will humanity survive. As long as there’s a handful of you to keep the spirit alive, you will prevail – even if it takes a millennium.

— Guinan

 

Picard: I have nothing to say to you; and I will resist you with my last ounce of strength.

The Borg: Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.

Picard: Impossible. My culture is based on freedom and self-determination.

The Borg: Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply.

Picard: We would rather die.

The Borg: Death is irrelevant. Your archaic cultures are authority-driven. To facilitate our introduction into your societies, it has been decided that a human voice will speak for us in all communications. You have been chosen to be that voice.

 

 

Locutus: Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life, for all species.

Worf: I like my species the way it is!

 

The Borg have neither honor nor courage. *That* is our greatest advantage.

— Worf

A terrifying concept.  Yet we see it in action to this very day, with the concept of socialism and multiculturalism.  Because true multiculturalism cannot exist without nationalism.  Because if there aren’t a collection of cultures and societies that maintain their distinctness, their own zone to be themselves, then it’s a farce.  Assimilating cultures ultimately eliminates those cultures, until there is only one left.  True multiculturalism with acknowledge the need for many societies with their own nationalist tendencies to exist.  White nationalism, black nationalism, American nationalism, Mexican nationalism, Japanese nationalism, Chinese nationalism.  The Romans once had their own culture, their own nationalism; but they allowed multiple cultures and immigrants to thrive in their society, they tried multiculturalism, they allowed themselves to become too lenient and lazy, and look how that turned out.

Even those who wish to see what other societies and cultures have to offer should hate the idea of multiculturalism.  When an American goes to Japan, or watches Japanese films and shows, do he do so because he wants more of what they’re used to in their society?  Or is it because he wants to experience the Japanese culture in all its glory?  Their cat fetishes, their wacky shows, their tea ceremonies, their temples, dances, masks, etc.  I doubt they would want to go there for the sole reason of experiencing the fucking weather.  The same applies for when one wants to go to Israel, or Somalia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Thailand, Mexico… or hell, even Hawaii.  Even though Hawaii is a state of the United States, they still hold on to a good portion of the customs they had prior to becoming a part of the United States.  And many of them still resent becoming a part of the United States.  They have a nationalist pride, even though they are not a nation.

Having one society/culture live peacefully with another can also be shown to have its detriments in another episode of Star Trek TNG: Birthright part II.  It tackles the concept of two societies coexisting peacefully as one, and the downsides to doing so (though there are upsides; either way, coexistence or not, both ways of living have an aura of unreasonable selfishness).  Where one race, the Romulans, live side-by-side with the Klingons.  And all you pro-safe-space candy-asses, take note of the next quote:

A place can be safe and still be a prison.

— Worf

 

Worf: You robbed the Klingons of who they were. You dishonored them.

 

Worf: I have done nothing more than show them who they are.

Tokath: No. You have shown them what you want them to be.

 

Today I learned the ritual hunt, but that is not all I learned. I discovered that warriors’ blood runs through my veins. I do not know how, or why, but we have forgotten ourselves. Our stories are not told, our songs are not sung! Tonight, as we came home, we sang a song of victory – a song known only to me as a lullaby – but it is a warrior’s song: “Bak’ta tu mo” – Fire streaks the heavens! “So-ja du wo” – Battle has begun!

— Toq

 

Tokath: We’ve put aside the old hatreds. Here, Romulans and Klingons live in peace. I won’t allow you to destroy what we have.

Worf: Do not deceive yourself. These people are not happy here. I see the sadness in their eyes.

Tokath: That’s not what I see when I look in my wife’s eyes. I married a Klingon. So you see, when I warn you not to disrupt our lives here, I’m not speaking just as a jailor; but as a man protecting his family.

 

Worf: I would not have thought it possible… to love a Romulan.

 

Ba’el: If there is anything that I’ve learned from you, from your reaction to me, it’s that I have no place out there. Other Klingons will not accept me for what I am.

Worf: And if I stay here, these Klingons will not accept me for what I am.

 

 

Tokath: Enough of this. We could talk all night and not convince each other. I offer you a choice: live with us, as one of us…

Worf: Or?

Tokath: Or I will have you… put to death.

Worf: Then that is what you will have to do.

 

Ba’el: They will kill you!

Worf: Yes, but they will not defeat me.

 

Tokath [to everyone present]: I know that there are those among you who may question what I’m about to do – and you would not be wrong to do so. I have questioned myself. I have spent the night considering my decision, challenging myself to justify whether it *is* right, and I have reached the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary… to put this man to death. What we have built together would be destroyed by this man, and I cannot allow that to happen.

Tokath: [to Worf] I give you one last chance to accept our way of life.

Worf: Those are eloquent words, Tokath, but the truth is, I am being executed because I’ve brought something dangerous to your young people: knowledge.

That’s the key word, knowledge.  What if one acquires knowledge of other cultures that they would prefer to live by rather than the one they were born under?  Should they be denied that?  I think not.  Especially in this day and age when knowledge is, and should be, easily accessible.  Creating a new culture is ok.  Changing cultures is ok.  Depriving one of the choice of living under another culture, that’s no different than depriving one of the choice of living under another religion (which is arguably an extension of a culture in some contexts).

Back to the current political/cultural climate in America.  It is considered the norm now to shame people out of following a culture, or a religion, or even a political view.  White nationalism is shamed because it is believed that, at best, it should be as general as nationalism.  Yet no such argument is made for blacks, who have the privilege of a Black History Month, Black History classes at universities, and television channels dedicated specifically to blacks such as BET (Black Entertainment Television).  Despite what arguments anyone would make to justify this, it is nothing short of hypocritical to promote that yet not promote white nationalism.

So at this point, I should acknowledge my position now before continuing.  Despite what I was taught, I no longer view white nationalism as a bad thing.  I am very pro-white-nationalist.  Not as extreme as neo-nazis, who more-or-less seek the elimination of all other nationalities (probably why they are weak to the point of irrelevancy, despite what others may say, and despite how many film about killing nazi antagonists continue to be released).  No.  It’s about taking pride in being a white person, and in the accomplishments of white people.  Because when you look back on history, it’s primarily white people who have made the most of the significant technological and societal advancements.  For starters, white people created the U.S. Constitution, proclaiming the very ideals of liberty and justice for all (even if they fell short of living perfectly by those ideals, as we all still struggle to this very day; but they are ideals to live by).  For another, we’ve invented a lot of great stuff that have helped the human civilization progress scientifically.

That’s not to say other races, including blacks, don’t have their own significant technological/societal advancements either.  Blacks have masonry, plus the significant cultural impact of rap, hip-hop, and their own unique English dialect that was prevalent through the 70s and 90s.  Asians certainly tend to be up there on the electronic frontier.    But whites are responsible overwhelmingly for much of the advancements in human civilization.  There’s also scientific studies into the average IQ among races to give further backing, and an explanation, into this pattern.  One also has to wonder why Africa, and portions of the Middle East, haven’t made hardly any societal advancements for centuries (if I’m wrong about this, feel free to provide evidence).

bq-5c66a615839cb

That aside, it’s also natural for those of the same race to want to mingle with one another and socialize together.  Many don’t prefer spending the majority of their time around others who aren’t like them, whether this refers to physical preferences, or even personalities.

This is one of the many reasons why I’m done taking a lax position when it comes to the promotion of white guilt and affirmative action.  It’s literally killing not just the nation of America, but nations in Europe.  White people are becoming a minority in the nations they founded.  In 20-30 years, it is white people who will become the minority.  And if the current social trends continue, if the current anti-white, anti-American propaganda remains (as it has remained since the Vietnam War), then whites will be on the verge of being eradicated.  This won’t just be a tragic turn of events for the white race, it will be a tragic turn of events for the human race.  Everything whites have done will be told in the history books as either evil, or as stolen from the other righteous races.  All that we have done, and all that we could have done, will turn to ash.

There is a reason for this whole thing.  It’s primarily for globalism.  Because the chaotic Middle-Eastern and African countries tend to be united on nothing, and are more easily controlled.  The elites know this.  They know those countries are easier to control because the people composing of the primary populace are that way because of their lower average IQ, because of their inability to unite under one large government; that is, their inability to do so under a government that offers liberty and justice.  This whole process isn’t happening naturally (as if that isn’t apparent already, with globalist policies becoming more and more apparent in both Europe and America; yet we don’t see much of that in China or Japan or Israel).  It’s by design.  And I refuse to become a clog in that wheel.  So, for now, I identify as a white nationalist.  And I hope for a future where nationalism is globally accepted, and where nationalities can exist alongside each other, while letting the others be as they are and retain their culture and identity.  Let white people be white people.  Let black people be black people.  Let asians be asians.  Let those who want an interracial society have one, so long as the other societies remain too.

Which brings me to Slaughterfilm.  They’ve made some brief statements about Trump and minorities in the past, which I more or less let slide.  But with the knowledge of the way of the world and some of its history that I now have, and knowing how damaging the effects of white guilt and forced diversity and feminism and #blackpower can cause, I can no longer sit idly by and just take those statements without challenging them (and hoping we can start a debate where one side attempts to sway the mind of the other).  If I’m wrong, I want to know about it.  If they’re wrong, they should expect the same.

1:26:14 is when this stuff begins that started to get to me.  Up until that point, I was willing to be lax about everything.  But then that semi-rant happened about black victimization, and that was it for me.  I knew I was going to be making comments that could very well push me to the point of no return.  Push them to the point that the bridge between us would burn.  Then so be it.

Quote from the rant portion:

“This film [Tales From The Hood] tackled very hard to tackle concepts like police brutality, abuse, violence, racism, slavery, and it’s so so so before its time.

[…]

It’s before its time in a way because a lot of the horrible shit that happens in this movie […] it’s in the news everyday.  It’s everything that’s been happening in the news, especially the police brutality and the racism.”

“But I like that it doesn’t just stop there.  […]  Obviously being poor sucks, and being poor while also being black double sucks while being in this country.  There’s so many factors working against you in those situations.  Obviously, racist-ass cops, racist-ass politicians.  Just general racist-ass shit.  But it doesn’t let gang-bangers off the hook either.”

“But not only is it very culturally aware, but it’s very relevant today.  I can see why Jordan Peele took influence from it for Get Out, and I’m assuming he did it For Us too.”

 

 

goodbye white pride

 

And now for my response, and the back-and forth that came from this initially:

Oh, so you guys do want to get political. Horror Noire, a film about blacks in horror films over the years, just in time for black history month. Guess that means I can take the gloves off. Let’s see how hard we’ll start swinging. Because I’ve made a review for black history month too. A review where I address the issue of stereotypes, how that is used to shame whites for stereotyping blacks in the past; and then turn the tables around regarding the stereotyping of how whites perceive blacks. And how ultimately stereotypes are a good thing, that should be applied to every race, every sex, every belief, and mock each and every single one of them for a laugh. Admit it, at one point or another, you’ve thought to yourself (if not said out loud) that the human race is stupid, and should be made fun of for its pettiness. This ultimately makes light of things, treats them as a joke to laugh at, and allows us to move along from the stupid things in the hope that we can move to the more intelligent things. As they said in Star Trek TOS, season 1, “Shore Leave”:

“The more complex the mind, the greater the need for simplicity of play.”

My point being, don’t get carried away with the black praise and white guilt complex, especially in this day and age when we should have long moved past all that shit since the early 90s at the latest, if not for the constant promotion of it in schools, universities, and mainstream media (including news, shows, and films). Stereotyping isn’t fun if you’re shamed/forbidden from stereotyping selective races/sexes/groups. Because once that happens, it becomes a weapon. And today, that’s exactly what it is. The only way to blunt it is to breathe some life back into older stereotyping. That especially involves making fun of Spike Lee, the hypocrite who is about as much of a racist prick as those he bashes in his films.

My other point being, take a gander at my film review for black history month:
https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/02/20/mystery-for-now-review-for-black-history-month-because-theres-no-white-history-month/

1:27:00
Oh Jesus. “It’s in the news everyday.” Really? Well then consider changing the channel, because plenty of police brutality and crimes committed against whites happen everyday too. Statistically, police brutality is more likely to happen against whites. Statistically, black-on-white crime is more likely to happen than white-on-black crime. There’s also the prevalence of making it seem like white-on-black crime is happening more than it really is due to a spike in racism and a certain derangement syndrome (just ask Jussie Smollet).

Guess it’s gone further than taking the gloves off. Now the swinging begins. Hit me back with your best shot. I guarantee I can take it. Don’t back down now, not if you’re going to be bringing up these topics in this podcast.
And one last thing, Godzilla would kick Cthulhu’s ass all the way back to the hentai tentacle dimension. Because Cthulhu’s main threat is all about intimidation and driving people into madness. You can’t intimidate Godzilla motherfucker.

Cory’s response (after reformatting the comments section, initially deleting my comments, which I reposted):

So I guess we should issue an apology. YES, horror and sci-fi regularly touch on political and social issues – so these topics will get brought up, HOWEVER Slaughter Film is about reviewing movies first. It isn’t about full blown discussions on these topics. So, I’m sorry that you got butthurt. I understand that it must be a struggle to be a white man, and bringing it up triggered you hard. You are persecuted. I am sorry.

After centuries of brutal beatings, forced labor, rape, and torture followed by emancipation that triggered anger and bitterness that grew hate, terrorism and murder. Then eventually segregation and racism – the effects of which are still seen today. Who are these lipstick lesbo liberals, and those SWJs to think that minorities had it tough? What assholes?!

But, GOD DAMN, that doesn’t hold a candle to being a white man in 2019. People look at us and think; “Boy, that white guy probably hates me”. WOW! I don’t know if I can take it.

Perhaps some undeserved guilt could be humbling? Though it may not apply to you and I directly, it could be a reminder that you’ll NEVER have it as bad, or BE as bad as those who have come before us… …nah, what was I thinking? That’s just craziness.

I should have also realized what would have resulted for having a Black History episode. It’s almost like I got confused and thought that Slaughter Film is OUR show or something, maybe we should learn from Disney and transform the podcast completely with some agenda, because after all, that seems to be what people REALLY want in their fun dick joke filled escapism. MORE POLITICS, am I right?.

Or maybe we should rule out ANY politics all together. Maybe we should censor ourselves. Self-censorship is always best. Maybe we should start by censoring the comments.

Well, I guess I’ve said enough. Time to go be good looking somewhere else… -Cory

My response (which I carried over to Podcast episode #349; and it got deleted), which I knew was going to push me to the point of no return (the gloves were already off):

I thought Black Sunday was pretty good, and quite violent for the time period with that opening segment.

Nice idea for the Purge concept. Maybe some Japanese anime can take advantage of it (they did it right with Battle Royale after all), with a bit of hentai thrown in.

Response to Cory from Podcast #347:
“So I guess we should issue an apology.”

I don’t want apologies, and I don’t want any of you to apologize. I want at least one of you to man up and defend your statements that I disagree with, especially if your beliefs in them are legit, and want everyone who listens to share in them. I want you to consider that the positions brought up at the 1:27:00 timeframe of Podcast #347 are likely wrong at worst, naively misguided at best; or at the very least respond to the points I made against that position directly. Because statements like that in this day and age are ripe grounds for debate. If you or anyone else doesn’t want to debate/discuss those topics brought up (inspired by the films you reviewed), then that’s fine by me. I can rip you a new one solo for my audience.
“I understand that it must be a struggle to be a white man, and bringing it up triggered you hard. You are persecuted.”

You get that line of dialogue from your MSM fortune cookie? Seems like you’re as triggered from my response as you allege I am by the statements given in the review. Though if you did actually watch the video I linked to, you wouldn’t be throwing around that “white man persecution” statement so lightheartedly.
After centuries of brutal beatings, forced labor, rape, and torture followed by emancipation that triggered anger and bitterness that grew hate, terrorism and murder. Then eventually segregation and racism – the effects of which are still seen today. Who are these lipstick lesbo liberals, and those SWJs to think that minorities had it tough? What assholes?!

But, GOD DAMN, that doesn’t hold a candle to being a white man in 2019. People look at us and think; “Boy, that white guy probably hates me”. WOW! I don’t know if I can take it.

But GOD DAMN, that victimhood mentality you people share for the “minorities,” am I right? How terrible the past must’ve been for them. How terrible that must make the present for them. Using the past as an excuse to shame those in the present who had nothing to do with those events. ‘Cause we can’t hope for fair treatment for everyone in the present, regardless of race, without bringing up the distant past as an excuse to do otherwise. Especially in light of numerous fate hoax crimes that are built upon the “white guilt” complex. How noble that must make them feel. But nevermind the white people who suffered with them, for the cause. Like in Mississippi Burning, let alone the Civil War. Nevermind the growing calls for reparations, the ultimate weapon of the victimization culture.

it could be a reminder that you’ll NEVER have it as bad, or BE as bad as those who have come before us

I should hope not. But sarcastic attitudes like that in spite of growing evidence supporting the idea that something like that could very well happen either in the later years of our lifetime, or within the next 3-4 decades, does tend to make me think you might just be ignorant enough to be crazy. Or you just don’t want to take something like this as seriously as it deserves. Consider looking into graphs that show how white people will become a minority in America by that time. Consider looking into how universities and various corporations are biased towards white men, and the hiring of white men. Because the merit system is less important for progress than diversity quotas. And since you want to broaden the discussion that far, I’ve got a video reference for that too, on The Cult of Oppression:

I should have also realized what would have resulted for having a Black History episode.

It’s not as a result of having that kind of episode. It’s as a result of that 5 minute pro-victim-culture speech during it.
It’s almost like I got confused and thought that Slaughter Film is OUR show or something

And I’m a part of the audience of your show, for now. A show where you encourage comments to be left, however disturbing they may be.
maybe we should learn from Disney and transform the podcast completely with some agenda, because after all, that seems to be what people REALLY want in their fun dick joke filled escapism. MORE POLITICS, am I right?.

Keep this up and that’s exactly what it will be. Disney certainly didn’t seem to give a fuck about the fan’s criticism of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and they won’t give a fuck about fan criticism of Captain Marvel either. Considering that Podcast #347 was your most politically driven episode to date, and considering how you’re not taking the criticism seriously, you do seem to be on the path towards losing the dick jokes.
Or maybe we should rule out ANY politics all together.

You will find that to be impossible. Politics has been ingrained in film since the 1910s. And many films today tend to be heavy-handed with their political messages. Hell, just having a podcast episode dedicated to Black History Month by its very title is political. It’s not a matter of avoiding politics, it’s a matter of how deep you want to swim in it. Ankle deep? Knee deep (in the dead)? Waist deep? Or as submerged as that guy in Get Out when he was hypnotized?

Maybe we should start by censoring the comments.

I was prepared for that the moment I made that those previous comments on Podcast #347, especially after it was initially deleted (saved a copy of it, just as I’ll save a copy of this, and a copy of your response). You can censor the comments. You can ignore the comments. You can ignore those who make the comments. But those who listen to your show and actually give a damn won’t ignore you. There are alternatives for having one’s opinion be known about an episode of the podcast. Whether it’s via Gab’s new Internet invention called Dissent, which will allow anyone to leave a comment on your page for everyone who uses Dissent to see, or via making their own video via YouTube, or BitChute (in case YouTube opts to take it down), or discussing the subject on another website. We both have our options.

If you don’t want to address criticism towards a statement made on your podcast, fine.

If you want to do away with comments, and stop suggesting people leave them at the end of each episode, that’s fine too. In fact, that is likely inevitable, if I am enough to set you off. There are others out there who are far less reasonable than me. You may eventually start attracting them.

If you decide to delete comments, my comments in particular, well… As they say, all good things must come to an end. And if it is to end, well, then I’ll be happy with the good memories I’ve had of the show, and of the messages I left early on that are more or less immortalized by you reading them from as early as Podcast #14: Terror Firmer & Vacancy, which you read out loud in Podcast #15. Back when I was known as Gex. How ironic it is then that you threaten censoring comments, making that threat directed towards me, when my very first comment on your site was:

“Freedom of speech, fuck yeah! The only thing that would’ve made that rant better is if you were playing the Team America theme song playing in the background.”

Even then things were political. We just agreed on more back then.

Let the games begin.
PS: On that note, whether things go badly between us or not, here’s hoping you still enjoy that board game I sent you long ago, Last Night On Earth. Here’s hoping you still enjoy those Sega Genesis and Nintendo games I sent you a while back. I’ll enjoy some of the more entertaining episodes you had in the past. However things go, we’ve left each other something.

bq-5bf9ecbca2965

Cory’s response (after deleting the previous response):

@AnomalousHost I appreciate that you are passionate about certain topics. Slaughter Film IS NOT the place for you to share your diatribes. You have a voice. Share it elsewhere. I’m not going to read, or argue with you. If we met in person, you would know where I’m coming from, and you would understand how LITTLE any of that matters to me personally. But, more importantly, it doesn’t belong here. I, and my co-hosts, can say any damn thing we want and we don’t have to explain or apologize any of it. Slaughter Film is OURS FIRST. Thank you for listening. Best wishes. -Cory

 

My final response:

@Cory
I understand. Was just hoping you (or one on your team) would defend the diatribes you yourselves make on occasion. Because I can’t in good conscience continue to listen to yours if you won’t take into account alternative viewpoints to such. Especially when I know how damaging it is, just as you suspect how damaging mine is.

This is goodbye then. Thanks for reading.
さようなら

We are heading for tomorrow, but we don’t know if we’re near.
Will we beg or steal or borrow?
Will we ever lose the fear?!

Time has passed in the modern world
Where the madmen live and speak their word.
Life in hand they deal with god
Put a trademark sign up on everyone.

God bless the children, freedom is their word.
Freedom, freedom; ’til they learn to obey.
Don’t fear the liars, reason is their name.
Reason, reason; play a silly game.
Where will the children go, tomorrow?
Gamma Ray

 

 

PS: Even the writers of Star Trek knew they couldn’t keep the Borg as an interesting threat without changing them (for the worse) in later episodes and films.  Even the writers think that a society that assimilates/destroys cultures gets fucking boring after a short while!  Because societies like that are fucking dull!

Region-Free Blu-Ray Frustrations

So a couple months ago I purchased a region-free blu-ray player from eBay.  LG Model BPM25 (hacked by the distributor to be region free).  Advertised to play any region blu-ray, any region DVD, on either NTSC or PAL format, on any television screen.  And I paid close to $100 for it.  Because I’m tired of being forced to purchase only American blu-rays when either foreign versions have superior versions, whether due to being:

A. Uncut and uncensored.

B. Superior video/audio quality.

C. Special features.

D. Just being plain fucking available on blu-ray.

I finally decided to shell out for it once I also decided to shell out cash for Rocko’s Modern Life, the complete series.

“But wait.  Why purchase that show internationally?  It’s available in the U.S. isn’t it?”

Yeah, it’s available in the U.S.  It’s available, in censored form!  And I don’t like my fucking films/shows being censored?  What the fuck do those cocksuckers know about what content children would/wouldn’t be ok with?  So to get the uncensored version, I had to go with the German format (region B, PAL).  The opening title song and some of the in-series text is in German, but fuck it.  If that’s what I have to put up with the get the series uncut, then I’m willing to risk becoming a part of the Aryan race.

Well, unfortunately, out of the 2 discs, the first one with the first 2 seasons didn’t seem to work.  2nd disc played just fine.  I chalked it up to the fact that the first disc was loose and bouncing all around the case during shipping, and thus received one dent/scratch too many.  So I was a little pissed, but decided this could be fixed down the line when I got enough money to purchase a 2nd set.  Until then…

…there was a 2nd film I wanted to get, from the UK.  The Good, the Bad, the Weird.  Christ, the history with this fucking movie.  When I first saw this film, I pirated it online.  That ended up being the best decision I made when it came to seeing that film.  Because the version I pirated was the Korean cut, a version that’s basically impossible to find today (even in Korea; seriously, what the fuck!?).  And it had subtitles (not the best quality, as there were some strange typos here and there).  But the whole film was pretty damn enjoyable.  Being naive to the fact that there are versions of foreign films that could be altered in the U.S., I asked for the film for Christmas.  Sure enough, I got it.  A full-fledged and legally purchased blu-ray of The Good, the Bad, the Weird.  As I was watching the film, I began to notice some strange moments.  There were some scenes/moments that appeared to be missing (from what I remembered from the Korean cut), and others that appeared to be new (not being in the original cut I saw).  But once that ending happened, I was fucking pissed.  I lost it.  They cut out several minutes of the ending, removing the epilogue.  And that epilogue was one of the main reasons I enjoyed this movie.

So I opted to get the UK version, since it at least has special features including deleted scenes (which I assumed would include those “missing moments”), and several alternate endings (more than just the original korean version).  But why not just purchase a copy of the Korean cut?  Because that’s fucking impossible, unless you want to shell out hundreds of dollars for it.  Fuck that, no movie is worth that price.  Not unless it’s some 8+ hour film like the original cut of that silent film Greed.  The Korean version has been out of print for a long while now.  And the fucking director of the film is ok with this, because he prefers the International Cut over the original Korean Cut.  Motherfucker, what about the rest of us who prefer the original fucking Korean cut!?  Lucasfilm-loving son of a bitch.  You could at least do what Ridley Scott did for Blade Runner and have an in-print release including both versions of the film.

But anyway, long story short, the UK version is as good as it’s going to get just for at least including the original ending.  But it’s far from satisfactory for those who remember the Korean cut.  The deleted scenes do not include those tidbits from the Korean cut, which means less background on one of the protagonists, and this funny moment from the “weird” guy.  So I did the next best thing and downloaded a streaming version of the Korean Cut, which I now need to set aside the time to fucking subtitle.

Then I was reminded of another film that we purchased a long long while back while we were vacationing in Thailand.  A Thai film epic not that well known in the U.S. titled Suriyothai, aka The Legend of Suriyothai.  We purchased the “extended” 3 hour version while we were over there.  We brought it back.  It didn’t work.  We were oblivious as to the whole “region lock” thing on DVDs at the time.  But I did get it to work on the computer for a time, seeing the whole thing subtitled in English (we at least made sure the film had that much).  Later on, I purchased an American DVD release of the movie.  Presented by Francis Ford Coppola.  And guess fucking what?  They cut out nearly 40 minutes from this thing, and the film suffers from it.  The 3 hour cut flows much more smoothly, and is a much better film for it.  So I was pissed about that.  But I tried it out on the newly acquired region-free blu-ray player, and sure enough, now we could watch the uncut Thai version.  I was happy… at first.  Then I found out there was, for a limited time, a 5 hour version of the film.  Which was long gone.  Then I was pissed again.  Couldn’t find this version anywhere online, and last I checked, some motherfucker on eBay was selling this version for over $1,000.  NO FUCKING MOVIE OR SHOW IS WORTH THAT MUCH FUCKING MONEY!!!  Kiss my ass!  I’ll live without ever seeing that version of the film if I have to pay that fucking much for it!  Funny thing is, it’s not listed on eBay anymore, which makes me conclude that some rich motherfucker out there actually shelled out that much money for that copy.  Jesus Christ, someone make a torrent of that thing so the rest of us poor fucks can witness that art.

Goddamn you people who censor film all to hell!

Next, there’s a Charleton Heston epic that we have on VHS, but we want on Blu-Ray.  No, not Ben-Hur.  And no, not The Ten Commandments.  This one is the lesser-known epic El Cid.  And the best version of this to get is from Germany from what I understand.  3-disc special edition, on blu-ray, with 16 minutes of restored footage (the VHS version we had only restored 10 minutes of lost footage).

So we got a hold of that film, put it in the region-free LG BPM25 blu-ray player.  And the fucking thing wouldn’t read the disc.  It wasn’t an issue of being on the wrong setting, on the wrong region.  Nope.  The fucking thing just wouldn’t read the fucking disc.  Even though it’s update to the latest version (and I didn’t even need to download an update).  I was pissed.  Even more pissed because now I started to think this was the same case with that fucking Rocko’s Modern Life disc.  So now I’m stuck with a $100 blu-ray player that only seems to work half the time.  I wanted to break something.  I wanted to smash that player into a thousand pieces.

But I decided to be more constructive than that.  I searched online for way to “jailbreak” blu-ray players so that they could become region-free.  Because I’ll be damned if I have to shell out even more money for a more reliable player.  Thankfully, there did seem to be a viable option.  The Sony Playstation 3.  Still had that lying around, primarily for watching films either via disc or digitally (USB and such).  And a part of me didn’t want to do this because it’s a royal pain in the ass to do this right, and it takes a while (even though the videos claim it only takes about 20 minutes; fuck them, it takes at least 2 hours).  For those who are interested in doing this, the best video I’ve seen is here:

As for the general process, here’s how it’s done (I might forget a detail or two, so make sure to visit the websites, plus go through the video, to be on the safe side; there is a chance you’ll “brick” your game console if you do something wrong).

1.) First you need to check to make sure your PS3 is compatible for this process.  If it’s a slim model, there’s a chance it won’t be.  First you check the firmware version you have, and make sure it’s version 4.82.  If you’re above that number, you’ll need to find a way to downgrade.  If you’re below the number, just upgrade to that version.

2.) Next check if the data version is 3.46 or less.  In order to check this, first you’ll need to download something called MinVerChck PUP (link to that and the other stuff).  Download that onto a USB stick (which you should have formatted to Fat32; make sure there’s no data you’re willing to lose when you format it that way), make sure it’s in the file format of PS3->UPDATE->’PUP file’, plug it into the PS3 in the right-most USB slot in the front, and do a System Update (not an online update, a local folder update).  After running the PUP file, it will display the data version.  Hopefully the number is low enough.

3.) Next, check the serial number on the back.  The numbers don’t really matter, it’s the right-most 7 digits on the back which will determine if your PS3 model is not only compatible for being jailbroken, but also to determine if it’s a NAND or NOR type.  That’s important for later.

4.) At this point, you will have determined if the PS3 is compatible for jailbreaking.  This and the next step is a bit finicky, and easily the most difficult part of the process.  Once you get past steps 4 and 5, the rest should be a breeze.  So, go to the Internet Browser of your PS3 (recommended to have it connected via Ethernet cable, but WiFi should be ok so long as it’s a good connection; don’t even try wireless if it’s not a good connection, you might “brick” your PS3 if it screws up here).  Make the home-page “blank” (set this in “Tools”, which can be accessed via the ‘triangle’ button), then clear all search history, cookies, cache, etc.  Close the browser, open it again, then go to this website: http://ps3xploit.com/  Navigate to the section top of the screen that says “Flash Dumper”, navigate to the drop-down menu that says “Dump Flash to USB”, then navigate to the next drop-down menu and choose either NAND or NOR, depending on your version.  Once you get to that page, set it as your home page, then close the browser.  Place an empty USB stick into the right-most USB slot (the USB should be Fat32 format), open the browser, then click the “Initialize Exploitation” button.  It will begin to initialize.  There’s a good chance this process will fail, in which case just reload the page and retry it.  If it fails too many times, shut off the PS3, turn it back on, and try the “Initialize Exploitation” again.  If it still fails, try a different USB stick (I told you this would get finicky).  Hopefully it will eventually initialize.  Once it is, then click the “Dump” button below to dump the file onto your USB.  If it doesn’t succeed, repeat the whole process again (Initialize, then dump).  Once  the dump succeeds, shut off the system, remove the USB, connect the USB to your computer, then copy the .hex file that should’ve been created on the USB.  Keep that file safe should you ever need it.

5.) Now you’re going to do a similar process.  Boot the PS3 back up, go to the Internat Browser, clear history, make the home page blank again, then close the browser.  Re-open it, go to that ps3xploit site again, only this time go to the Flash Writer section, which will open up a drop-down menu.  “Write Flash to USB,” choosing either NAND or NOR, depending on your system.  You’ll arrive at a similar-looking page as before.  Set this as your home page, then close the browser.  From there you’ll go through a similar process as before, except you’ll need a file on your USB stick this time around.  See the video for more details.  You’ll do another Initialize Exploitation, and then Patching the Flash Memory.

6.) You’re PS3 is now jailbroken, and now capable of taking in custom firmware.  The ones I ended up using were REBUG and multiMAN.  So first, download the REBUG firmware package onto your USB (site link: https://rebug.me/downloads/).  There are several version to choose from.  I chose the 4.82.2 LITE version.  Put that on your USB, plug the USB into the PS3 (make sure the PS3 has been shut off or restarted prior to installing ANY custom firmware to be safe), and install it.  After that’s done, restart the system.  Then download the multiMAN firmware (http://www.psx-place.com/threads/multiman-v04-82-00-deank-adds-4-82-cfw-support.15615/).  I used version 4.82.00 BASE.  Install it the same you you installed REBUG.  Once installed, restart the system.

7.) At this point, you should have everything needed to make the PS3 region free (ie, be capable of swapping region versions from A to B to C, and DVD regions 1-6, or are there 7?).  Go into multiMAN, then navigate to “Settings”.  There should be a section in there titled “Blu-Ray Movie Disc Region,” with a blue disc symbol next to it.  If it’s not there (and this was the case for me initially), shut the system off, then turn it back on (don’t just restart it, turn the whole thing off).  Once it’s on, navigate back to multiMAN (oh, right, and you’ll probably want to disable that damn music that plays in that software, which you can also do under Settings), go back to “Settings”, then go through it again.  You should eventually be able to see it, like in the video above.

After much stress and cursing, I eventually got through that whole process, and got the PS3 to be capable of being region free.  And as of now, it works, and is able to play the German (region B) version of El Cid.  Now I’m going to see if it will also work with disc 1 of Rocko’s Modern Life, or see that this disc really is FUBAR (fyi, I tried the washing it with soap, then use furniture polish trick; that didn’t work with that piece of shit LG blu-ray player; hopefully it will work with the PS3).

 

PS: Oh, and in case you’re wondering… NO!!!  No I don’t fucking recommend purchasing that piece of shit LG BPM25 region-free blu-ray player.  Fuck that player, that player sucks.

The War on Film Culture: Part 6: The Star Treatment (1910-1935)

Studio employees had little time or energy for social life except when they were not working, and in those circumstances they stuck as close as they could to other motion-picture people, hoping to find a new assignment.

[…]

After working together all day, players and directors often dined together, visited together.  For many performers, whose theatrical work had forced them to travel and live for months at a time in hotels or boarding houses, it was their first opportunity to own a home and live year-round in the same place.  Lacking the rich cultural attractions of New York, and the competition and acquaintanceship of creative workers in allied arts, they fell in upon themselves with the intensity sometimes found in isolated, specialized groups, such as diplomats in a foreign capital.  They became distinctive, self-aware, permanently settled community of entertainers.

Timeline Buildup

The first real motion picture celebrity was an actress who went by the alias Biograph Girl.  It wasn’t until 1910 when she was signed by Universal Pictures for advertisements and personal appearance tours (not to mention going on to appear in 300 films); that was when her name was revealed, Florence Lawrence.  She would also go on to invent (but not patent) the automobile “signaling arm” (to indicate when you’re turning and which direction) and the first mechanical brake signal in 1914.  She would fall on hard times after suffering from relapse in 1914, her career would flounder in the early 1920s, suffer from bad personal relationships, and commit suicide in 1938.  She would not be the first, or last, celebrity to suffer a terrible late-career fate.  But she would outlive others, who became stars after her.

1914, Mary Pickford became the first real movie superstar.  Canadian-born, co-founder of United Artists film studio in 1919 (as did the other famous film star Charlie Chaplin, and D.W. Griffith), she would star in 52 feature films.  Her fame faded when “talkies” (film with sound) grew in popularity from 1927 and onwards.  She retired from acting in 1933, and became an alcoholic (the same year prohibition ended).  After a tumultuous relationship with her family members, she became a recluse for the rest of her life until her death in 1979.

1914-1919, Theda Bara became popular.  Known as one of the earliest motion picture sex symbols, she was also known for being a vamp (dark and seductive) in her film roles.  Unfortunately, most of her films have been lost to the ravages of time.

Women’s clubs/organizations were prevalent during this time period.  They worked heavily to make prohibition and women’s suffrage legal.  Meanwhile the film industry was providing more career opportunities than anything else at the time.  Some women also learned to use their good looks to their advantage when off-camera.

Intelligent girls learned to calculate a man’s worth.  Enterprising aspirants had several alternatives: they could be supported as mistresses;  could marry; could divorce for the alimony; could sue for breach of promise; could blackmail.  The leering mogul may have been a real figure, but so, too, was the producer who always kept his door open and never saw a young woman in his office without another person present.  Smart women did not become streetwalkers on Skid Row; some of them bankrolled their charms into acting careers.

— Sklar, p.76

1917, the same year famous silent film star Buster Keaton arrived on the film scene, America entered into World War I.  Soon after, the film The Spirit of ’76 is released.  A film portraying the Revolutionary War.  The film would be confiscated by the Chicago censorship board maker of the film, and Robert Goldstein would later be tried and convicted under the Espionage Act, for portraying Britain, America’s ally in World War I, in a negative light.  This film has been lost to the ravages of time.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Ad_for_1917_silent_film_The_Spirit_of_%2776.jpg/220px-Ad_for_1917_silent_film_The_Spirit_of_%2776.jpg

December 18, 1917, thanks to the efforts of women’s rights organizations, the 18th Amendment (prohibition) is proposed by Congress.  Prohibition would become the rule of federal law two years later.

November 11, 1918, World War I ends, and the American economy took a nosedive.  There was no need to be manufacturing weapons and inventory for war now.  When the soldiers returned stateside, they flooded an overwhelmed job market made all the worse when a depression hit at the start of 1920.  It made many look forward to finding an escape from reality and into entertainment.  Since the motion picture industry showed no signs of slowing down, and with the growing popularity of various movie celebrities, the movies were an optimal choice.  And with the European continent devastated by the war and in poor financial straits, it was prime time for Hollywood films to take advantage of the international market like never before.

January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment is adopted into law.  Billy Sunday declares:

The reign of tears is over.  The slums will soon be only a memory.  We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs.  Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh.  Hell will be forever for rent.

1919, popular actor Wallace Reid suffered a serious leg injury.  In order to finish filming the scenes he was to be in for the film In the Valley of the Giants, the studio would have their doctor provide Reid morphine.  From that point on, without having time set aside to allow him to recuperate, Reid would become addicted to morphine.

September 28, 1920 – Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson confess to participated in the fixing of the 1919 World Series by the Black Sox. The scandal causes the creation of the position of ‘Commissioner’ to serve as the public face of reform. The film industry would learn from this example as it formed the Motion Picture Producer Distributors of America (MPPDA).  Similar scandals were arising within Hollywood, with accounts of celebrities having booze parties and prostitutes, having plenty of money and connections to live a party lifestyle when they weren’t working.  Meanwhile church leaders and women’s organizations would continue to rally the public against Hollywood.

1918, Charlie Chaplin (age 29) abruptly marries 16-year-old Mildred Harris. They divorced two years later, causing quite a public stir.  In 1922, he married Lolita McMurry, also 16 (making the name almost ironically appropriate). They would divorce in 1927 after a sensational divorce case.  During this sensational divorce, women’s clubs successfully urged some states to bar the showing of Chaplin pictures.

Starting in the 1920s, Hollywood allowed mandated abortions on their actresses. Studios determined whether or not a pregnant actress to should keep the baby (taking into account demand for her star presence in their upcoming films).  Joan Crawford, Jeanette MacDonald, Tallulah Bankhead, and Bette Davis had abortions for the sake of their careers in motion pictures.  Studios even pressured (forcefully) some actresses, such as Jean Harlow and Judy Garland (who became pregnant in 1941 at age 19) were forced to have abortions, sometimes with their parents contributing towards pressuring them to having an abortion (that includes the mother, particularly in Garland’s case).

August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage) was adopted into law.  Politicians began courting the new block of potential voters.

September 5, 1920 – Model and actress Olive Thomas accidentally ingests mercury bichloride and kills herself. The bichloride had been prescribed to her husband, Jack Pickford to treat his chronic syphilis.  The press ran wild with the incident, some accusing Pickford of murder, others declaring Thomas committing suicide after her husband forced her to participate in drug-induced orgies, among other wild theories. This became one of the first big scandals that would rock Hollywood.

Thanksgiving 1920, a gang of around 8 young men would drug and sexually assault 2 teenage girls in San Francisco.  This incident would make headlines, and be perpetuated when more women came forward with similar rape charges (referring to separate but similar incidents).  75 women’s clubs would have their representatives attend a meeting on December 13, 1920, and form the Women’s Vigilance Committee (WVC).  Their goal: to curb vice, and support female victims, witnesses, and family members at trials.

March 1921, the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry (established in 1916) would issue “Thirteen Points” that the movie industry was to avoid for the sake of avoiding promotion of immoral conduct, in order to appease the ever-growing protests of religious/womens organizations.  This ultimately didn’t work, as many studios flat-out ignored the existence of the points.

The Catalyst

image_656x817_from_0,0_to_5175,6443

Americans had always been of mixed minds about great wealth.  They agreed it was a desirable goal, but they feared the temptations that came with the power of money–the release it gave from ordinary social restraints.

–Sklar, p.77

Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle would begin his rise to fame in 1913.  He was a big name alongside that of Charlie Chaplin, and Buster Keaton, even working with both of them on separate occasions (and was close friends with Keaton).  A comedian who’s role was largely slapstick humor, and taking the blunt of most jokes (partly because his on-screen character deserved it at times).  However, September 5, 1921, Labor Day, that day marked an incident that would not only change his life forever, but also drastically accelerate the controversy of the motion picture industry (let alone Hollywood), and increase the pressure from both women and religious organizations.  It was a night of partying at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco for Arbuckle and company. A party with plenty of booze, which was illegal at the time, though virtually all major Hollywood stars did this.

Arbuckle would spend a portion of the evening alone in a room with another aspiring film actress Virginia Rappe, a woman who used to be a fashion model, advocated for women to seek non-traditional forms of employment, became a clothing designer, all before she reached the age of 25 (though she would lie about her age during her film career, claiming to be younger than she was).  After they spent a portion of the evening together at the party, she would spend the next two days in physical pain before being admitted to an asylum for treatment.  (It was common for actors to get medically treated anywhere but hospitals to keep things on the down-low, especially since actors were known within the industry to be drug users and alcoholics, which could cause medical problems the industry didn’t want to be made public.)  She would die September 9, 1921, 4 days after the event at the hotel.  William Arbuckle would be accused of rape and manslaughter, be arrested, and tried at the courts.

From there, the controversy would explode.  This event would be the catalyst women and religious organizations had been praying for to ignite their war on film, and turn the war in their favor on what they considered an immoral practice that needed to be reigned in and suppressed.  It would also be the catalyst that would cause the government to get even more involved in the industry, outside of pro-war propaganda films (which was no longer relevant since the Great War’s end in 1918).  And the controversy would be covered by the papers, many of which were controlled by William Randolph Hearst.  The papers would largely smear and ravage Arbuckle’s image, while portraying Rappe as an innocent angel.  And this wasn’t limited to just America.  This also made international headlines, as Arbuckle and his films were also popular in foreign markets.

The woman who accused Arbuckle of raping and ultimately murdering Virginia Rappe.  Delmont wouldn’t ever be on the witness stand during the trial, due to the prosecution determining she wasn’t a reliable witness, considering her history of blackmailing men in the past.

A former friend and director Arbuckle worked with, Henry Lehrman (who was also former domestic partner of Rappe), would speak out against Arbuckle.

Would I kill Arbuckle?  Yes.  I feel just as any other man with red blood in his veins.  I will not deny that I have said I would kill him if we were to meet.  I hope the law will punish him and that he will receive full justice for the crime.

— Merrit, p.118

District Attorney Matthew Brady, the prosecutor on the case, worked with the WVC to rally against Arbuckle, hoping their influence and his association with them, combined with the potential of securing a guilty verdict, would ensure his maintained position as District Attorney when the next election took place.

Religious organizations and preachers would also speak out against Arbuckle.

He has assaulted public decency and morality.  He has betrayed the thousands of little children who laughed at his antics.  He has defied chastity and mocked virtue.

— Evangelist Robert Shuler [Merrit, p.165]

The only exceptional priest who spoke in Arbuckle’s favor would be the Protestant preacher who spoke out against alcohol, Billy Sunday.

I feel sorry for ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle and do not see how any court in the land could convict the fallen idol for murder or manslaughter.  […]  The girl died, but I believe her death was caused by an accident and not by Roscoe Arbuckle.

[Merrit, p.165]

Theaters across the nation would pull and ban all Fatty films to avoid controversy.

September 14, 1921, the Los Angeles city council held a meeting to discuss increasing film regulation.  Protestant ministers spoke in favor of regulation and censorship.  The president of the Motion Picture Directors Association, William Desmond Taylor, would speak out against such regulation.  He would make a statement titled “The Nonsense of Censorship.”

Censorship of motion pictures is a menace to the very principles of the Constitution of these United States of America.

–[Merritt, p.275]

November 14, 1921 – December 4, 1921, the first trial of Roscoe Arbuckle takes place, with 5 women and 7 men on the jury.  The WVC (the president of the club at the time was Dr. Mariana Bertola) sided heavily with the prosecution.  The jury (which had their names and addresses released in the papers) voted 10-2 not guilty.  It was a hung jury, where one of the women jurors, Helen Hubbard, became internationally famous as the “lone holdout.”  She was too stubborn in her refusal to acknowledge some of the facts of the case.  She would make a statement post-trial, referring to her time on the jury:

There is no place for the woman on the jury.  […]  Any woman is a fool to even get on one if she can possibly get out of serving.  I’d rather die than go through it again.  The general attitude and language of the men is offensive to a woman.

— [Merrit, p.225]

It is worth noting that at this time, it was still a bit controversial for women to be serving on the jury.  This had been legalized in California in 1911, and still remained questionable that women could be considered fair and impartial jurors.  During this Arbuckle trial, the Chicago Tribune would state:

It is a fair presumption that the cause of exact justice was injured by the presence of the women on the Arbuckle jury.  A woman might have to overcome her aversion for a man charged with immorality before she could get anywhere near the issue of whether he was guilty of manslaughter.

— [Merrit, p.225]

The WVC, of course, praised Hubbard’s stance.  Nothing much was said of the other 4 women who voted not-guilty along with the other 6 men.

January 11, 1922, the second trial begins.  This time the jury would consist of 11 men and one woman.

This photo is faked by the way.  And was used in the papers.

It’s not prison I’m afraid of.  It’s not the loss of fame or fortune.  It is the loss of regard; the loss of affection, the fact that the kids may think I am guilty that hurts me…. Guilty?  The law says a man is not guilty until he is proven so.  But, my friend, let a man once be arrested and charged with a crime; let his name go broadcast in those first, cruel stories, regardless of fact, and he is branded guilty…. I have suffered.

— Roscoe Arbuckle [Merrit, p.244]

 

 

Meanwhile…

January 14, 1922 – William Hays resigns his cabinet post as the Postmaster General to become the President of the newly formed Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA).  His annual salary would be $100,000, an increase from his postmaster general annual salary of $12,000, and even higher than the president of the United State’s $75,000 annual salary.  He would stay on as postmaster general until March 4.

February 2, 1922 – The director William Desmond Taylor, the director who spoke out against censorship, is found murdered. The murder, unsolved to this day, unraveled careers of several Hollywood stars and further damaged Hollywood’s reputation.  Actresses revealed to be addicted to cocaine, underage girls alleged to have sexual relations with the deceased director, among other various acts of prostitution, drug dealing, and prohibition gangsters.  Taylor’s death exposed more than just the incidents he was involved in.  It exposed the actions of others within Hollywood.

This would cause the papers to refocus their attention on Hollywood in general, bringing back up accusations of the depravity and danger within Hollywood.  This would, in turn, increase calls for film censorship.  There would also be a movement among Hollywood critics who would espouse nativism and anti-Semitism, since most of the major studio heads were immigrants, all of whom were Jewish.

The American public is ardent in its hero worship and quite as ruthless in destroying its idols in any walk of life.  It elevates a man more quickly than any nation in the world, and casts him down more quickly–quite often on surmise or a mere hunch.  It is the general inclination, when trouble happens to strike in film circles, for the thoughtless to whisper, malign and gossip and to speak with that mock sagacity of the times of “the inside dope”[…]

[…]

The man and the woman who thus accepts as worthy of esteem this filmland neighbor should do himself or herself the moral honor of refusing to accept tattle and shoulder shrugs in place of fact–as he undoubtedly would in the case of his respected physical neighbor.

–Statement attributed to Arbuckle [Merritt, p.255]

Hollywood wouldn’t be in much of a position to defend itself, since there were other celebrity controversies already brewing, if not already exposed in the papers (such as aforementioned Chaplin marriage and extra-marital affairs controversy, and Olive Thomas’ accidental drug overdose).  They needed a sacrificial lamb to keep the mobs at bay.  Arbuckle, one of their biggest stars that currently had the biggest spotlight shined on him due to the controversy and the coverage in the papers, would be their prime candidate, regardless of his innocence or guilt.

Fat Chance

The pressures of aspirants and fans had caused studios and stars to build walls of privacy against the outside world.

–Sklar, p.83

February 3, 1922, the second trial ends, in a 10-2 hung jury vote of guilty, with only the lone woman juror, and another male juror, voting not guilty.  The defense was overconfident in this trial.

The public is tired of seeing some morally rotten but highly paid actor or actress glorified and held up as an idol.  The public is tired of having sex flung in their faces.  People who live decent lives, the mothers and fathers with families that they are trying to raise to be upright and decent, are tired of seeing film after film picturing infidelity and red love.  They are tired of seeing the other man as a permanent fixture in the home–according to the movies.  They are giving the producers their chance to reform from within.  If they don’t, public opinion won’t do any reforming at all.  It will simply annihilate the motion picture industry altogether, just as it did the saloon.

— District Attorney Matthew Brady [Merritt, p.278]

March 13, 1922, third trial began.  This time, there would be 8 men and 4 women on the jury.  April 12, 1922, they would all reach a verdict of not guilty.  The 12 jurors would make a statement following the acquittal.

Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle.  We feel that a great injustice has been done him.  We feel also that it was only our plain duty to give him this exoneration, under the evidence, for there was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of this crime.  […]  The happening at the hotel was an unfortunate affair for which Arbuckle, so the evidence shows, was in no way responsible.  We wish him success, and hope that the American people will take the judgement of fourteen men and women who have sat listening for thirty-one days to the evidence, that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame.

–[Merritt, p.268]

Arbuckle would also make a statement.

For this vindication I am truly grateful to God and my fellow men and women.  My life has been devoted to the production of clean pictures for the happiness of children.  I shall try to enlarge my field of usefulness so that my art shall have a wider service.  It is the duty of all men to use the lessons that have been given them by experience and misfortune for the benefit of all–to make themselves more useful to humanity.  This I shall do.  I can only repay the trust, confidence and loyalty bestowed upon me during my trouble by millions of men and women throughout the world by rendering service in justification of their faith.

–[Merritt, p.269]

Arbuckle was broke after the trials.  Thanks to his celebrity habit of reckless spending, his attorney fees, and the fine to be payed for unlawful possession of alcohol, he was in dire need of finances.  Finances he hoped to recoup with ease once he got back to working in movies again.

April 18, 1922 – Will Hays forbids Roscoe Arbuckle from ever working in Hollywood again.  However, it would not be Hays who acted alone on this.  According to Hays’ memoirs, Joseph Schenck and Adolph Zukor came to him after the third Arbuckle trial and demanded Hays and the MPPDA be the ones to publicly blacklist Arbuckle, while keeping their names (and thus Paramount Pictures) from being associated with the blacklisting.  In turn, it would give credit to the MPPDA for coming out swinging, getting Hollywood to clean up its act, an act publicized (and at times blown out of proportion) by the papers, and the Protestants, among other organizations.  Arbuckle’s films continued to be banned across the country (as they had been since prior to the first trial).

“Fatty” Arbuckle was a movie “goat.”  While he escaped conviction in court he was crucified by public sentiment which demanded that somebody be made to pay for the loose lives of too many of the movie stars.  It was just Arbuckle;s misfortune that the choice fell upon him.  It might have been anyone of a number of others no better than he.  A little more than usual vulgarity and an accident directed selection of Arbuckle.  So he is paying for it all.

–Editorial in a Wisconsin newspaper, November 22, 1922 [Merritt, p.289]

Senator Henry Lee Miles would denounce Arbuckle while on the floor of the US Senate, and further state:

At Hollywood, California, is a colony of these people, where debauchery, riotous living, drunkenness, ribaldry, dissipation, free love, seem to be conspicuous.

–[Merritt, p.288]

The California Congress of Women and Parents supported the banning of his films, as did the San Francisco Federation of Women’s Clubs.  The general public, with the aided influence of women’s and religious organizations, plus gossip articles in the papers, was still generally against Arbuckle and in support of keeping his films suppressed.  In addition, the public grew even more curious as to the (secret) lives of Hollywood and the celebrities they (once) admired.

After the Laughter Dies

May 1922 – The Sins of Hollywood: An Expose of Movie Vice is published by an anonymous author, later identified as Ed Roberts (former editor at Photoplay).

To the boys and girls of the land these mock heroes and heroines have been pictured and painted, for box office purposes, as the living symbols of all the virtues–

An avalanche of propaganda by screen and press has imbued them with every ennobling trait.

Privately they have lived, and are still living, lives of wild debauchery.

[…]

Unfaithful and cruelly indifferent to the worship of the youth of the land, they have led or are leading such lives as may, any day, precipitate yet another nation-wide scandal and again shatter the ideals, the dreams, the castles, the faith of our boys and girls!

It is for these reasons that the SINS OF HOLLYWOOD are given to the public–

That a great medium of national expression may be purified–taken from the hands of those who have misused it–that the childish faith of our boys and girls may again be made sacred!

[…]

If the screen is to be “cleaned up,” the sores must be cut open–the puss and corruption removed–This always hurts!  But it is the only known way!

During the 1920s, several women would become major Hollywood stars.  Colleen Moore’s fame would arrive in the early 1920s, being known as one of the first flapper girls (meaning a 1920s woman who showed disdain for conventional dress and behavior).  Then there was Clara Bow, who would become the first natural sex symbol (and would be known within Hollywood to freely sleep around with several men).

Many of these stars, however, would not have a good end to their stardom.

May 27, 1922 – Actress Audrey Munson attempts suicide in Mexico, New York, by attempting to swallow a solution of bi-chloride, the same substance that killed Olive Thomas. Unlike Thomas, she would survive the attempt, but became mentally unstable, and would spent the next 65 years in a mental institute until the day she died.

December 20, 1922, Hays released a statement referring to Roscoe Arbuckle:

In our effort to develop a complete co-operation and confidence within the industry, I hope we can start this New Year with no yesterdays.  “Live and let live” is not enough; we will try to live and help live.

–[Merritt, p.291]

While this was taken to mean it was ok for studios to screen “Fatty” films again, and employ Arbuckle, it was later revealed in Hays’ memoirs that Hays didn’t intend for Arbuckle to work in movies again so much as be given the opportunity for employment elsewhere, so that he could at least make a living; in the spirit of fair-play and charity.  Ultimately, the statement ended up ringing hollow in the industry and with the public.  Women’s and various Motion Picture organizations, religious groups, and teachers groups, all still demanded Arbuckle films not be shown.

Arbuckle would release a statement, asking for “the rights of an American citizen,” to be treated fairly and not be unjustly/maliciously be attacked by others who are “refusing to abide by the established law of the land.”  He would even quote scripture, and reference Jesus and his acts of forgiveness.  His statement proved futile in improving his position.  Even theater producers offered Paramount sums of money in order to purchase Arbuckle films that hadn’t been exhibited.  Paramount would refuse.  Arbuckle’s career was virtually finished.

Thus, as author Greg Merrit states, “It was America’s first great battle in a culture war.”

January 1922 – Actor Wallace Reid’s morphine addiction eventually spiraled out of control.  He would eventually be admitted to a sanitarium after a mental breakdown.  Will Hays would visit him at the sanitarium December 19, 1922, and would later proclaim that despite his state, Wallace was recovering.  Wallace would later die in the sanitarium on January 18, 1923, a fate similar to the one Audrey Munson would face. His widow produced a movie about the dangers of morphine addiction called Human Wreckage (1923) which toured the country.  The film is lost, unable to be viewed today.

The board of motion picture censors of Portland [Oregon] today ordered the arrest of Andrew Saso, manager of a theater, on the ground that he had shown a motion-picture featuring Roscoe (Fatty) Arbuckle.  Films featuring Arbuckle have been banned by city ordinance since October 15, 1924.

— Los Angeles Times, December 14, 1932 [Merrit, p.359]

 

March 3, 1931, The Star Spangled Banner is made the national anthem via congressional resolution, signed by president Herbert Hoover.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

 

June 29, 1933, Roscoe Arbuckle, who was on the verge of a potential acting come-back, dies in his sleep of a heart attack.  Some papers would declare that he literally died of a broken heart.

Here is the sad spectacle of a man being punished by so-called democracy!  A man who was acquitted of a trumped-up charge by three American juries!  But our militant good people arose to crucify, to persecute an innocent man!  They dragged him down from the topmost pinnacle of being the clean and funny comedian that he was and made of him the world’s most tragic figure!

— Rupert Hughes, making a speech towards Roscoe Arbuckle at a 1925 Hollywood banquet [Merrit, p.307]

Epilogue

Regarding Virginia Rappe, and whether or not Arbuckle actually caused her death by raping her, it seems unlikely.  There really isn’t any evidence that indicates he did rape her.  At worst, he might have had consensual sex with her, but even that is a bit far-fetched, at least from what I’ve concluded from my research.  As to what caused Rappe’s health deterioration during and after the party, there are a number of things that could’ve contributed.  One, years of alcohol consumption weakening her bladder.  Two, the fact that she has had at least two abortions in the past (part of that whole Hollywood mandate thing that began roughly in the 20s), and one abortion could’ve caused a small tear to her bladder that grew overtime.  Plus the doctors did anything but treat her symptoms correctly for at least the first two days after they were shown.

In any case, there is at the very least a reasonable doubt as to Arbuckle’s guilt.  Sure he led the celebrity lifestyle, become a higher class than most American workers, and spent in excess for mansions, vehicles, booze, parties, etc (as many top-paid celebrities back then did, and still do today).  But that doesn’t excuse the wrongful condemnation by women’s rights organizations anyway (among others).  And the parallel’s to today’s #MeToo movement are uncanny.

It only seems ironically fitting what events would take place just before Arbuckle’s death.

July 13, 1923 – The Hollywoodland sign is erected.

September 18, 1932, Millicent Lilian ‘Peg’ Entwhistle, known for being a stage actress, was on a downward spiral career-wise.  She would hike to the Hollywoodland sign, climb a ladder on the “H,” and threw herself down the mountain.  Her suicide note would read, “I am afraid, I am a coward. I am sorry for everything. If I had done this a long time ago, it would have saved a lot of pain.”  Soon after, the one and only film she ever appeared in, Thirteen Women, would premiere November 11.  It would be neither a critical or commercial success.  When it was re-released in 1935 during the Hays Code era, 14 minutes would be cut from the film.

All of [the scandals] made the media, and of course America, question: What is Hollywood like?  We go to see the product that they make every week.  And they’re feeding us ideas and images.  But how do they live?  Are they not living by the same standards, the same moral values by which we live?

— Mark Viera

If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us.

–Chief Justice Morrison Waite of the United States Supreme Court; Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett (1874); case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution did not grant anyone, specifically a female citizen, the right to vote even when a state law granted those rights to certain citizen classes.

In order to promote reform, it is first necessary to show the wages of sin.

–Cecil B. Demille

Sources

Merrit, Greg.  2013.  Room {1219} The Life of Fatty Arbuckle, The Mysterious Death of Virginia Rappe, And The Scandal That Changed Hollywood.  Chicago Press Review Incorporated.  Chicago, Illinois.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pickford

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peg_Entwistle

Sklar, Robert.  1994.  Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies.  Revised ed.  Vintage Books.  Random House Inc.  New York, NY.  Toronto, Canada.

 

Part 0Part 1, Part 3 Part 2Part 4, Part 5