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, does 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!

Debate! Right-wingers commit more murders than any other political group in the U.S.?

Nothing can break me out of my slumber like a potential debate on a wild subject.  So I’ve been tweeting and gabbing a bit here and there, but not really finding it in me to make another full-blown blog post.  Until now.  Hope they don’t disappoint me.

So this all started, sort of, with that shooting at Thousand Oaks.  So the same sort of arguments came up that usually come up around this point in time before anyone has any time to grieve (because let’s face it, many people who weren’t in the area give less of a shit about the victims and more of a shit about using them as a means to an end to make a political point about gun control, or lack thereof).  “We need more gun control!”  “It happened because it was in a gun-free zone!”  “Conservatives suck dick!”  “Liberals suck dick!”  You know, all that stuff.

But I was taken off-guard when the topic came up that far-right extremists are statistically proven to be more responsible for these “massacres” than left-wing extremists, let alone muslim-extremists (I wonder of the last two should be grouped together, considering how much left-wingers go down on Allah worshipers).

Let me start at the Twitter tweet (because let’s face it, it’s only on Twitter where I can find people with differing opinions to debate with, Gab is currently just an echo chamber; it’s going to take another couple years before that changes, if it lasts that long) where someone who goes by the name Historian‏ @NeolithichHist got involved in the discussion to finally make it interesting (ie offer me a real challenge).  Someone else did something like that in an earlier Twitter debate I had which got too convoluted, and I’ll include her in the discussion should she choose to get involved in this current one (I can handle double teaming should it come to that).

1

Every single time huh?  As opposed to every other time where someone illegally obtained a gun to go kill people?  Because statistically, those who don’t legally purchase a firearm (or who don’t legally obtain a firearm) are much more responsible statistically for gun crimes than those who do.  But that’s just addressing the “legally purchased a gun” portion.  He’s primarily taking aim at “white conservatives.”  I’m not entirely sure where to find a study that takes aim at people by grouping them by their politics (identity politics is a dangerous topic to get dragged into, which from what I understand many left-wingers live by).

The difference between identity politics and people identifying with politics is this: The Left uses the concept of identity politics to spread division and strife amongst people.  So they bring this group into a room, and they tell them something different in this group, and there’s something different in this group, and they pit them against each other.  […]  On our side, and on the side that I think better represents what we believe, is that we use people… all we use things to identify with politics. So we say… Ok, this group of people learn differently, they have a different culture.  We understand that.  But we’re telling everybody the same thing.  […]  And that message is unity, freedom, and American values.  Big difference, huge difference, and we have to understand that difference.  And therefore we can reach outside of the box.

Finding studies that group people by their race, on the other hand…

According to a 2015 Brookings Institution study, 77 percent of white gun deaths are from suicide. Only 19 percent are homicides. Even when you combine homicides and suicides, the white-male death rate from guns is approximately 16 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is less than five per 100,000.

[…]

A staggering 82 percent of African-American gun deaths are homicides. Only 14 percent are suicides. The overall gun-death rate for black males is roughly double what it is for white males, and for black males between the ages of 20 and 29, the rate is approximately 89 per 100,000.

[…]

Gun deaths are lowest in the population that owns the most guns. Fully 41 percent of white households report owning a gun, compared with only 19 percent of black households. Among white Americans, there are more guns, but there’s less crime. Among black Americans, there are fewer guns, but there’s more crime.

[…]

After all, there is ample evidence that federal officials can be extraordinarily lax when it comes to gun crimes, especially in cities where the death toll is highest. As recently as 2012, the districts encompassing Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York ranked last in federal gun-crime enforcement per capita.

[…]

Cries for gun control will lose their potency when crime loses its potency.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/02/20/gun-violence-and-race-conservatives-gun-owners/

But I know what some of you might be thinking.  “82% of African-Americans killed by guns?  How often was it white people doing them in?”  Well not that often.

According to the American Community Survey 2016 estimatesLos Angeles is 49 percent Hispanic, 29 percent white, 8 percent black, and 11 percent Asian.

The findings of the “Los Angeles Police Department Homicide Report” for 2017 are unsurprising for racial realists. According to this analysis, both the victims and perpetrators of violent crime in Los Angels are young, non-white, and poor. Of the 282 homicides which occurred in Los Angeles in 2017, 177—62.8 percent—were gang related.

Of all homicides committed in 2017 in Los Angeles, 72 percent involved handguns. Shotguns and rifles accounted for only one percent each. “Assault weapons”—the weapons targeted by current gun control push—accounted only for one percent. Firearms were used in 93 percent of homicides committed by gang members.

Suspect descriptions were provided for 146 of the homicides, yielding 171 suspects (some incidents involved more than one suspect). Of these suspects, 52 percent were Hispanic, six percent were white, and less than two percent were Asian. An astonishing 40 percent were black, despite blacks comprising less than ten percent of the city’s population.

https://www.amren.com/features/2018/04/the-color-of-gun-crime-in-americas-big-cities-race-new-york-city-chicago-new-orleans/

So what else does he got?

 

2

 

 

3

4

And that’s where we left off, plus my mentioning that I’d carry this over to another website.  So, regarding that article he linked to

The only Islamist terror attack in Pennsylvania over the past 15 years was committed by Edward Archer, a mentally ill man who shot and injured a police officer in early 2016, later telling investigators that he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Far-right episodes of violent extremism were far more common.

[…]

A new database compiled by The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute examines that claim by looking back over a nine-year period, from 2008 through 2016. The findings are dramatic: Far-right plots and attacks outnumber Islamist incidents by almost 2 to 1.

There are 201 incidents in the database, sorted broadly as Islamist, right wing (including white supremacists, militias and members of the so-called Patriot and sovereign citizens movements), and left wing (including animal right militants, environmentalists, anarchists and Black Lives Matter sympathizers). Most of the Islamist incidents are thwarted plots, indicating a significant investment of law enforcement resources. Most of the others are successful acts in which attackers damaged property or inflicted human casualties.

[…]

  • Right-wing extremist terrorism was more often deadly: Nearly a third of incidents involved fatalities, for a total of 79 deaths, while 13 percent of Islamist cases caused fatalities. (The total deaths associated with Islamist incidents were higher, however, reaching 90, largely due to the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas.)
  • Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities – making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/

Have to admit, it’s a very extensive article.  The quotes above aside, it also points out how federal resources are used to target Islamists far more than right-wing-extremists.  Which is disproportionate to the number of crimes right-wing-extremists commit compared to Islamic extremists, or even left-wing-extremists, which even when combined is still lower than the crimes committed by right-wing-extremists.  The point the article is making is that right-wing-extremists (implying extreme conservative whites) are more responsible for acts of domestic terrorism, and causing fatalities by those terrorist acts, than any other political/religious group in the United States.  As far as I can currently tell, there’s no disputing this (though I am open to opinions, with data to back them, that oppose this conclusion).

However, don’t be fooled by this.  This found a way to take the broad discussion of dangers posed by groups based on their political/religious leanings, and narrowed it down in a way to make it appear that we should all be more critical and wary of right-wingers than left-wingers (there’s the muslims too, but for the purpose of this discussion we’ll leave them out of this for now; they were worth mentioning just because of the context the above article is to be taken).  It only focuses on acts of terrorism, as the article defines it.  It doesn’t take into account gang-violence, non-terror related incidents of fatalities.  You know, where the big numbers are.

Let’s take into account the population of the United States and, statistically, how ethnically diverse it is (though that can be a bit tricky with the Latino population, given the illegal immigration issue).  According to StatisticalAtlas.com, out of a population of over 200 million people in the United States, 62% are White, 17% are Hispanic, and a little under 13% are Black.  Now with those numbers in mind, you would think crime stats would be similar to fit with those percentages.  Since whites compose the majority of the population, you would expect the majority of the violent crimes to be committed by whites, mostly against other whites, sometimes against other races (the higher the number of other races, the greater the chance they will be a victim of the majority race).  And you would expect Hispanics to make up the second highest amount of violent crimes, with Blacks taking third place.  In a perfect and fair world, where everyone is the same and equal, and treated as such, that should be the case.  And by the logic of that RevealNews.org article, that seems consistent with it at least in terms of race (at the moment, I can’t locate an article mentioning the ethnic percentages of what makes up those who identify as right-leaning, left-leaning, or just down the middle, so I wouldn’t know how to begin taking apart an argument stating that right-wingers are more dangerous because they’re composed more heavily of whites than left-wingers, anymore than I could make an argument supporting that view).

That being said, it’s not a fair and perfect world because we, as humans, are not a far and perfect species.  We have political differences, we have cultural differences, and we have different hobbies.  Because of those factors and more, anomalies are to be expected.  The issue is what to make of those anomalies and how to address them without making things worse.

So with that in mind, back to the statistics.  The RevealNews.org site states that right-wing-extremists are responsible for the deaths of 79 people from 2008-2016.  An 8-year time-span.  Not that I think nothing should be done about combating terrorist acts or anything, regardless of what race and political-party-supporters are doing them; but this is small potatoes.  79 deaths over the course of 8 years.  Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.  Non-white people, non-domestic-terrorist people, can beat that number in 1 year, in 1 city (not State, not County, City).  Most of those committed by people who don’t legally own firearms.  A good portion of those committed by non-white (and thus one could assume, by some strange logic, non-right-wing) individuals.

So they want to argue that because there are more right-wing-extremists in a white-majority country committing the most domestic terror acts on a white-majority population, we should do… what exactly?  Have more gun control or eliminate guns when it’s statistically proven that More Guns = Less Crime?  Have white guilt?  Have right-wing guilt?  I say we’re taking the wrong approach with that mindset, given some inconvenient facts that go against such conclusions.  Consider the overall scale of crime.  The overall crime rate, according to DisasterCenter.com, has been decreasing since 1991, without a single year of uptick.  That being said, according to the same source, the murder rate has sort of always been in flux; but recent years have shown that it has been on the rise since 2014, and hasn’t gone down since.  More than 17,000 U.S. citizens per year are murdered; it’s been that way since 2016.  That’s too many just to simplify the argument down to, “But right-wing-extremists killed nearly 80 people in 8 years, roughly 10 people a year on average!”  The problem is broader in scope than what domestic terror acts can account for.  Certainly broader in scope than what right-wing-extremists can account for.  Don’t let mainstream media which lives for sensationalism fool you into thinking otherwise.

On a side note, this does seem to fit an interesting pattern.  A similar spike in overall murder rates occurred in 1999, with the number continuing to rise until 2003.  So if the pattern is to repeat, that number should start to fall by, oh say, by either this year or next year.  They seem to go by roughly 4 year patterns of rising and falling; making it seem like they coincide with presidential elections.  Not sure if that’s a coincidence or if the political climate across the history of the U.S. is a contributing factor.  On the other hand, I’m not so sure these are normal times we’re living in.  Hindsight is 20-20, so time will tell.

What else do you have for me Historian?

 

Edit (11-24-2018): Here’s an interesting article: Armed Citizens Have A 94% Success Rate Of Stopping Would-Be Mass Shooters According to FBI Data

Mystery Review for Black History Month and Valentine’s Day

So, what to review for this time of the year; this time of the month?  I’ve been pondering a few films to review for black history month; which, to be honest, I think is kind of a stupid thing, because if there’s going to be a black history month, then there should be a white history month, or a red history month, or a pink history month, etc.  Kinda racist to leave all the other races out, don’t you think?  Just have a plain old-fashioned history month!

But I digress.  I could review 12 Years a Slave (2013), directed by Steve McQueen, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor (and no, I couldn’t type that name correctly without copy-pasting it, and I refuse to believe that guy could either until he was in middle school), who was awesome in that one judo movie Redbelt.  But despite the great directing and cinematography (especially that) and acting, it’s just a basic run-of-the-mill slave film that just looks real nice.  It may be basic, but it’s still pretty damn great, but also depressing, so not exactly the most entertaining popcorn flick I’d rewatch often.  But then again, neither is Requiem for a Dream, and that film is pretty damn good too.

I could review Django Unchained (2012), but that film is overrated.  Seriously, it ran out of steam after the first big gun battle.  Even during that sequence, the realism walked out the building.  Now I know what you’re thinking, it’s a Tarantino film that is only similar in name only to the Italian film it ripped off (which I recommend over this), and it’s supposed to be all about the homages, the callbacks, the retro vibes.  Because Tarantino can’t really do anything all that original, though he is capable of writing some absolutely fantastic dialogue.  But that’s the thing.  The whole, “But it’s retro!  It’s supposed to be over-the-top and a bit cheesy and exploitative!” is something I just see as a lame excuse to disguise the flaws inherent in some of his films, mainly with this and Death Proof (despite the incredible stuntwork that film pulled off) and Kill Bill (though I find it impossible to hate those movies despite my gripes).  The difference between his films and those he pays tribute to is that the latter took itself dead-seriously, thinking without any doubt it was the most bitchin’ thing in the world, when it is really cheesy as hell and all the more entertaining because of it.  Tarantino’s films, with the exception of Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, are intentionally designed to give that feel, are very self-aware, which makes it all the more easy to critique and give them hell for it.  It’s a bad excuse to let realism get thrown to the wind during Django Unchained’s last 20-30 minutes, especially when Tarantino’s films (at least prior to Kill Bill) were firmly grounded in realism.  Plus I have reason to believe this is one of the films, if not the film, that started the whole white-guilt/black-power element that’s been plaguing films in a negative way since then, though not all are bad.  But I’ve rambled enough about that with this paragraph, so I’ll just end it by saying this movie was meh.

I could review Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, except that I already did that.

I could review Super Fly (1972), which is a fun movie, but not THAT fun.  Sure it has a hilarious chase scene where you can see the camera cord bounce in and out of frame off and on (stuff like that brings a smile to my face, at the very least, when watching these old 70s blacksploitation films), some somewhat amusing fight scenes (especially the hilarious finale fight), and a smoking hot bathtub sex scene.  But all in all, it’s just a slightly above-average flick with a lot of big lull points with some sparse entertaining bits here and there.

I could review Shaft (1971), arguably the most famous blacksploitation (the spell-check wants me to auto-correct that word to “transplantation”) film of all time, especially with that kick-ass theme music, plus those pen metaphors for colors; but that would be too easy.

I could review Black Dynamite (2009), but that would also be too easy, even if it is one of the only films I’ve seen next to Bruce Lee’s Game of Death that has a nun-chuck vs. nun-chuck fight against Michael Jai White and Richard Nixon, but I think that reason is enough to convince you of how fucking epic that movie is, and is mandatory viewing.

I could review Black Panther (2018), but fuck that.

Nope, not going to review any of those.  I’ve got something else in mind.

From 1992,

the one,

the only,

the legendary…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could’ve saved this for April Fools, but then you would think this is a joke.

Rated: 3 / 5

“Wherever there is a male race, or lifeform in the universe, that is oppressed by females, we’ll come and free them, for a gay universe!”

“Oh it’s real!  It’s damn real!”

Yes, this movie exists.  Yes, it was made to troll the shit out of people.  And yes, I’m trolling the shit out of you too with this review.

So the film begins where Star Wars and Star Trek began, in space, in the universe.  A calm peaceful universe where men are free to live and express themselves freely, and watched over and cared for (in more ways than one).  The gayniggers (the film title indicates that is one word, the narrator speaks as if it’s two separate words, but I’m just going to go with the one-word format for this review) come from the planet Anus, a “male only” world.  They pilot a ship, with crew members named ArmInAss, Captain B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls, Mr. Schwall, and D. Dildo.  They come across Earth, and are ready to not pay it much mind until they find out there are “female creatures” on the planet, which makes one of them ask, “What in the phallus is going on down there!?”

So they go down to Earth determined to save men from the oppressive females (probably because the #metoo movement caused them to take over the world, and eliminated honey badgers in the process), and start by killing hookers in some city.  Then they start killing females in Russia, a country who’s language is incomprehensible, and is untrustworthy.  Then they go to Asia, where the women, and I quote, “eat with branches, have yellow skin, and are very unfriendly.”  Then they go to Germany to eliminate females, who are all blonde and hate dark skin.  Then they go to America and kill Mr. T’s girlfriend, then ArmInAss tries to fist Mr. T, who then gets angry and squeezes his tight muscular buttcheeks together and rips his arm off, which causes him to get welcomed onto the ship as a replacement crew member, with the new name M.B. Cheeks.  And after all this, one stays behind to lead the Earth into a peaceful gay future.

Oh yeah, and speaking of arms in asses, did I mention there’s a “Holy Asshole” that they stick their arms into?  And that one of the gayniggers transforms into a white European?

It’s worth mentioning that this film is intentionally badly dubbed, in that the voices don’t always sync with the lip movement (to say the least).  The music can be decent (and funky) at times (even if it steals the theme from S.W.A.T.), and the narrator has a nice ASMR voice (pray he never uses it on you, or else you’ll get to relaxed and then Surprise!  Butt-sex!).

goodbye white pride

So I guess the theme to take away from this movie is that it’s ok to be gay, learn to live without women, and should women start oppressing men, pray to the stars and then gayniggers from outer space will show up and blast women into oblivion and make men not be such pussies anymore (the world belongs to the dicks and assholes).  Happy black history month, and happy valentine’s day.

Jumanji (1995) and Welcome to the Jungle (2017) dual review

Jumanji is one of my favorite films from the 90s.  It’s not just a good kid-flick, but a good film in general.  So when I heard they were making a sequel to it, all I could think was, “Why?”  Then I saw the trailer, and I thought, “WHY!?!?!?”

My second thought was, “So this is what it feels like to have your childhood raped.”  So I expected this to be terrible going in to see it.  That probably should’ve worried me, because setting expectations so low provided a decent chance for the film to rise above them.  Which is ultimately what happened, and that pisses me off even more.

I wanted a film that gives me plenty to rant and rave about damnit!  It’s supposed to be worse than Star Wars: The Last Jedi!  In all fairness, The Last Jedi is a better film than this one, but that’s only because this film is simple mediocrity, with no aspirations whatsoever (make the movie, have fun, cash out) where as at least The Last Jedi at least strives to be more than that.  And for that matter, so did the original Jumanji movie.  From here on out, when referring to the 1995 film, I’m just going to call it Jumanji, while this new one I’ll call WttJ (Welcome to the Jungle).

 

Rated: 4 / 5

Welcome to the jungle, we’ve got fun and games!

When watching Jumanji, I admire several things about it.  This film is a drama, with some adventure and comedy thrown in.  At its core, it’s a film about taking responsibility and facing your fears, and the consequences of not doing so.  It takes a long while before this becomes evident, as the film does a somewhat unique style on how it introduces our main characters.  I haven’t seen very many films that pull this off successfully.  First we’re introduced to Allen, a young boy who doesn’t want to live a life his father wants for him, and wishes to run away rather than face his father on the issue (at least not too much).  His girlfriend is introduced more slowly, first by dialogue discussions between Allen and the bullies, and then she is revealed later on.  Then they (unintentionally) play the game, a mystical board game that looks too well-made from a wooden design standpoint for something that isn’t well known (thus helping with that mystic aura it gives off, sound effects and musical complimentary notes aside).  An accidental play, much like how life throws unexpected surprises (some good some bad) at us.  Allen is sucked in, and disappears, much as how he intended to run away and disappear.  And his girlfriend, Sarah, runs away rather than tries to help him get out of the game (but, in all fairness, she was just a girl at the time, and was scarred emotionally by the whole ordeal, so it’s easy to sympathize with her, just as it’s easy to sympathize with Allen).

Then we are introduced to 2 other characters, Peter and Judy, who we become acquainted with and spend more time with than we did with Allen and Sarah.  These two kids also desire an escape from their current lives, which have gone downhill ever since their parents’ unfortunate death via an airplane crash, while on their way to a ski vacation.  It’s not until far later in the film that Allen appears again, due to the 2 new kids playing the game.  And even later on, Sarah finally re-enters the film.  The main characters aren’t firmly established until the film is practically halfway over.  Have to admit, when taking it in that context, this film seems rather daring.  Having the main protagonists appear early on, then disappear for a good portion of the first hour, and then re-appear to continue the story.  The film eases its way into allowing the viewers to be familiar with the main protagonists.  And it works.

Oh yeah, and Lilith from Cheers is in this.

As the film goes on, Allen, now an adult played by Robin Williams in one of his best roles, eventually comes to realize not just how much his father loved him despite the fight they had, but also what can happen when he runs from his fears.  When he visits the old shoe factory, after going through his old town and seeing how terrible it has become compared to what it once was (think Detroit before and after the 60s), he meets a homeless man who is familiar with the town’s history, who must’ve been associated with it to some extent in the past before becoming how he is now.  His speech to Allen about how the town became how it is now, how the Shoe Factory went out of business, how it was all because Allen’s father searched for Allen endlessly after Allen disappeared, no longer caring about anything else but finding himself.  Likely blaming himself for Allen’s disappearance, thinking he ran away because of him (which is true, but under a different context).  It’s such a tear-jerking moment, especially seeing this realization wash across Allen’s face, realizing not just how much his father loved him, but how much damage his running away has caused (metaphorically speaking, as his disappearance was caused against his will, though he did intend to run away prior to that).

But the film doesn’t just settle for the character trying to right the wrongs of the past.  It also shows how Allen’s character has evolved.  Not just turning into a survivalist with his time in the jungle within the game, but also with how he has become like his father.  He is still afraid, hates himself for not being more mature earlier on, but also becomes angry at Peter for wishing to continue playing the game.  Because Allen knows what will happen if they do so, that more creatures, and individuals, and weather conditions will emerge from the game to make things worse.  He warns Peter of this, but also knows that Peter is right.  This doesn’t make him any less angry, and eventually tells Peter in his anger that he needs to man up and face all of this like a man, because it’s Peter’s doing for causing this to happen.  Immediately after doing that, Allen realizes how he’s acting like his father in the past, and also realizes how he’s being hypocritical, and tries to comfort Peter after this.

Regarding the facing of fears and taking responsibility, the film handles it as it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  And longer one runs from their own fears, the worse things will get.  This is shown early on with Allen confronting these bullies after running from them earlier, the bullies chasing him because he went out with their leader’s girlfriend (Sarah).  It results in him getting beat up, but then things more or less work out after that.  With him running away from his father, and staying away for years (again, the film plays with this with him wanting to run away, and him escaping to Jumanji unintentionally and against his will), this causes consequences resulting in the town going bottom-up economically when the Shoe Factory shuts down due to his father searching for him.  It’s also shown from a more metaphorical standpoint with them playing the game, something they must do to resolve everything, and it continually makes things worse not just for the main characters, but for the town around them.  It’s not until near the end of the game when Allen finally conquers his fear, his primary fear being that of his own father.  It’s some heavy-hitting metaphors, reminding me of Silent Hill 2 with how everything in that game is basically a projection of the protagonists own fears and desires.  And yes, I just compared Jumanji to Silent Hill 2.

Jumanji being a 1995 film, two years after Jurassic Park hit theaters, CG is used, but it’s used along with practical effects.  Granted, the film hasn’t aged THAT well, but it doesn’t look all that terrible either, all things considered.  The CG is dated, but acceptable.  Most of the practical effects work, but a couple are laughable (those spiders, I lose it every time they show up).  Then there’s instances of blending CG with actual objects, which do a good job of making them seem more real.

 

 

 

Practical spiders.

 

 

 

Blending CG with real objects.
Honestly, I still think this effect works.

So, yeah, a film that I still think is great today.  It still works as a character drama mixed with a fun adventure film, with some decent comedy moments thrown in for good measure.  Emotional, fun, all around solid even with the somewhat dated effects.  As for the sequel…

 

 

 

Rated: 2 / 5

Welcome to the jungle, it gets worse here every day!

So like I said, I expected to despise this film.  And it started off meeting those expectations.  So some metal drummer punk finds the board game in the sands on the beach, more or less picking up where the last film left off.  Except that the last film left off with the board game on some beach in Mexico, Puerto Rico, or some place where they speak Spanish.  You know, it’s times like these that I think it might be a good idea for American film studios developing a temporary partnership with some foreign studio and allow them to take a jab at the property, whether it’s a remake or a sequel.  Seriously, it might not be a bad idea, and a perfect way to inject a different and fresh style into the film.  Granted, everyone will be of a different ethnicity and speaking a foreign language and viewers would have to read subtitles (unless they’re lazy assholes who refuse to watch any movie subtitled), but for those of us who care, it would be worth it.

But I digress.  Ignoring where the board game wound up in the previous film, this metal dude gets the board game out of the beach sand, takes it to his home, and opens it up to see what it is.  He sees it’s a board game, and says something along the lines of, “Who plays board games anymore?” before tossing it aside onto his stack of Playstation games.

Fuck you you fucking fucker!  Board games are fucking awesome, even back in the 90s!  What, cocksuckers like you never heard of Crossfire!?

How about Forbidden Bridge!?

Kiss my dick and suck my ass!  You deserve whatever fate befalls you for pissing off the Jumanji game!

But rather than letting curiosity get the better of him to try out the game, you know, by hearing that drum beat or something (which doesn’t fucking happen!), the board game transforms into some Atari cartridge game or something so that he can play it.  What the fuck!?

Scarily enough, this is likely foreshadowing.

So that’s basically how they decided to make this into a sequel to Jumanji, by having the board game transform into a video game just for the fuck of it.  And you know, from here on out, aside from this dumb fucking reference to the first film that happens in the middle of WttJ, this movie is completely different from Jumanji!  They could’ve called this film ANYTHING else, anything not associated with Jumanji, and I wouldn’t be forced to do this comparison bullshit.  It has more in common with Tron than it does Jumanji.  Stop making half-assed sequels and remakes Hollywood!  Do what Disney has been doing since the 90s, ripping off stories and making them their own (The Lion King = Hamlet + Kimba the White Lion, Pocahontas rewriting history, The Little Mermaid being more lighthearted than the original source, etc.).  Rip off movies, stop trying to claim that they’re remakes or sequels!

Tron

*deep breathe*  Ok, with that out of the way, and after metalhead gets sucked into the videogame, the film basically becomes its own thing that bares little resemblance to Jumanji.  4 kids get put into detention, one for be a snot-nosed bitch who refuses to turn her cell phone off, 2 of them because they cheated on their school assignment, and the other because she mouthed off to the PE teacher.  And in detention they stumble across this game (somehow), and plug it in, play, and get sucked into it, each becoming a different character based on which character they chose at the start of the game.  So each of them is given a new body with certain personality traits that peak through occasionally.

Like being so black and unfunny it pisses the Republicans off.

Now, before I continue, it’s worth noting that the dumb fucks who made this movie think that cartridge games actually have a loading screen.  Did any of you motherfuckers ever play a Sega Genesis or a Super Nintendo?  None of those fucking consoles had loading screens.  Why?  Because cartridges are faster than CDs!  Just take a USB drive compared to a fucking Disc for comparison in today’s world!  On that note, I wouldn’t be surprised if games eventually went back to a cartridge style play, assuming everything doesn’t wind up online (not likely since Net Neutrality has been killed and now cocksuckers like Verizon and Comcast can start throttling other companies if they don’t pay a little extra, like in 2005 when Comcast delayed BitTorrent traffic, or in 2007 when AT&T censored Pearl Jam, or 2007-9 when AT&T forced Apple to block Skype, or in 2011 when MetroPCS announced it would block streaming services over its 4G network except for YouTube, or 2012 when Verizon blocked tethering app use on their phones, or when Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix until 2014 when Netflix agreed to pay them extra, or 2014 when T-Mobile used data caps to manipulate competition, until 2015 when net neutrality was in place until 2017 when that went away [those dipshits will likely throttle my site now just for bringing that up]).

Too much stress for the hair to endure.

With that tangent out of the way, the plot of the film is that our 4 heroes need to return a green crystal McGuffen to a big McGuffen statue in order to win and get back to the real world.  So no, there’s no trying to roll a 5 or an 8 on the dice.  That’s all I’ll say about the plot.

Honestly, the only time she was funny was during her make-out scene with The Rock, which was definitely one of the funnier moments of the film.

So, are there any deep character moments in this film?  What the hell do you think?  Of course there isn’t!  As if you would think otherwise after seeing any of the trailers.  There’s this theme of friendship, and acceptance, not being selfish, and of tranny stuff like being a woman trapped in a man’s body, or a wimp trapped in a muscular body (or vice-versa), or an average-looking chick trapped in a hot chick’s body.  There’s a line in the movie that goes, “What you are on the outside is not what you are on the inside,” which is stating that it’s your character and personality that counts, not your looks, but it’s more fun to think of this is as a transgender message.  Personally, I think the tranny theme existed just so Jack Black could do that role of acting like a woman.  And in his case, it works, because he completely steals the show from everyone else.  He gets the most laughs and produces the best comedic charisma out of everyone, even doing better than Dwayne Johnson (who also got a couple laughs from me here and there, by doing his usual The Rock routine).  He must’ve loved doing this, and I’m not going to lie, despite my gripes, it was fun watching him do this role.

Or maybe I’ve misjudged this film.  This bit could be a complex female fat joke.

This movie exists primarily to be a comedy, not giving much of a shit about the dramatic moments, which would be fine if it was funnier than it is, but it isn’t.  The film is just another typical forgettable comedy affair that offers some chuckles here and there, but nothing that’s going to be all that memorable.  It’s not the trainwreck I expected it to be, but it’s still a desecration to the Jumanji film, and it does not deserve to have that word in its fucking title.  I would’ve liked it more if it had nothing to do with that title.  Just being called Welcome to the Jungle would’ve been fine.  Hell, I’d be interested if they just called it Atari Jungle or something.

Oh, guess that title was already taken by this suckass film.

So in case you didn’t guess from the rating, this movie is a pass.  You’re better off tracking down and watching the Jumanji animated series.  And you can buy the entire series right now on DVD, all 3 seasons for less than ten dollars (hey, if this fucking movie is going to have advertisements in it, then so will this review!).

 

PS: Oh, right, and there were some blatant obvious advertisements in this film, mainly with Sony, their PS4, their smartphone, and Dave & Busters.  Well, at least they kept it game-themed with the ads.

 

 

Let’s Play the Google Bias Game! (1)

Alright, who’s up for a game where you find out how biased the search engines are?  It’s easy, as you’ll see.

For this entry, you just need to do 2 different searches.  Image searches.  Type in “white couple”, and see how many images pop up of a white couple.  Then type in “black couple”, and see how many images of a black couple show up.

Bing results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 28/30 (including 1 gay couple with a black baby, and 1 lesbian couple)
93% accuracy

DuckDuckGo results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 43/53
85% accuracy

Google results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 27/40 (including an image of Trump and Hillary, and some woman going to prison [doesn’t have to do with a “couple”])
68% accuracy

 

 

Bing results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 30/30
100% accuracy

DuckDuckGo results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 56/56
100% accuracy

Google results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 39/40
98% accuracy

 

 

 

What other biased/inaccurate searches can we come up with?