The War on Film Culture: Part 2: The Fox and the Monopoly (1900-1915)

Nearly every man who develops an idea works at it up to the point where it looks impossible, and then gets discouraged.  That’s not the place to become discouraged.

— Thomas Edison

 

Carrie Nation, a radical feminist and member of the temperance movement (against alcohol before prohibition), went about busting up saloons in 1900 for a few months in protest of alcohol; she usually did this wielding a hatchet.  A year later, Edison would capitalize on her popularity with the film Kansas Saloon Smashers.  It’s only inevitable that films would cover topical subjects outside of boxing.  Carrie Nation would later die in 1911, with her last words being, “I have done what I could.”  In 1919, her dreams of national prohibition would be realized.  One year later, women would be given the right to vote.

Continue reading

The War on Film Culture: Part 1: Boxing with Edison and Rector (1894-1897)

Enoch J. Rector
Thomas A. Edison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But political fear is more than an individual experience, and it affects more than personal lives. The morals contributing to it descend from tradition and popular belief, and the rational calculus underlying it reflects the realities of social and political power. Whether by design or consequence—for sometimes the outcome is intended, other times not—political fear reinforces a society’s distribution of power and resources, influences public debate, and compels public policy.

— Corey Robin

In 1894, one of the first films ever was censored by the mayor of Newark, New Jersey.  The films is titled Carmencita.  It was censored because, during the dance, the woman’s underwear is (briefly) visible.  But this was a minor act of censorship compared to what would happen three years later.

Continue reading

Backtrack (1990), review of a criminally underrated film.

I’ll admit, the tagline sucks.  It becomes apparent why.

Rated: 3.5 / 5

 

Introduction

backtrack (verb):
1. To go back over the course by which one has come.
2. To return to a previous point or subject.
3. To reverse one’s position or policy.

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

This is one of those films not many know about, and if they do know about it they’re probably only aware of the theatrical cut.  Upon my first viewing, that’s the version I saw.  Sometimes the film goes by the alternative title Catch Fire, other times it goes by the intended title Backtrack.  Either way, it’s most likely the theatrical cut (TC).  The Director’s Cut (DC), on the other hand, can be found and can be viewed.  But as far as I can tell, it’s only available on VHS.  It has never gotten a DVD release, let alone a Blu-Ray release.  So I had to settle for lesser video quality, which is a shame because it becomes impossible to make out some text that, while not mandatory to see, would certainly improve the viewing experience.  Also hurts that it’s not available in widescreen unless it’s the TC version.

To make a long story short, the DC is far superior to the TC.  This is a criminally underrated film, underrated because of the ravished treatment it got by studio interference which made it more shallow than intended (to the point where Dennis Hopper demanded his name be removed from it as director).  Also underrated because it is misunderstood, primarily because of the TC treatment, also because few have seen the DC version, and because those who do watch it tend to view it more as a guilty pleasure than anything else (though I will admit, that’s how I initially viewed it until giving it a closer look).

Jenny Holzer reference.

 

Director’s Cut Review

This film is a cry for something different.  A film that is aware of how stale films in general have gotten, which is something more relevant today than back when this was made.  Granted I’m only speaking from my current experience, but I do recall there being plenty of 70s and 80s films that generally had bleak endings and/or formulaic plots and atmosphere/progression that seem to come straight out of an assembly line; the independent film wave of the 90s. had yet to hit, but it was just around the corner after this film’s release.  The statement is made early on with one of the LED art signs which states:

I AM CRAZY BORED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE ENDING

And another sign which states:

I WALK IN AND OUT OF THE CRACKS OF MY SKULL WHEN THERE IS NOTHING

Blatant, literal, with very little wiggle room for interpretation.  This is the art style of one of our main protagonists Anne Benton (played by Jodie Foster).  She specializes in LED light art for politics, personal relationships, cliches, and for statements on the excessives of average people.  LED lights appeal to her because they are familiar, they are everywhere, and people are drawn to them.  Normally they are used for advertisements, for shallow consumption; but she aims to use them for artistic merit.

 

A reference to another artist, Georgia O’Keefe.

But in so making her art so literal, the abstract is sacrificed (to the point where other artists, including one played by Bob Dylan, look down on it).  While her art is easy to understand, her wants/needs/desires are not.  She isn’t truly happy, and she subconsciously wants something different, but she can’t figure this out for herself because she is so literal.

Oh yeah, Bob Dylan is in this.

Opposite of Anne is Milo (played by Dennis Hopper), a hitman for the mafia who also has a taste for the abstract art.  His hobby, when he’s not collecting art, is playing the saxophone.  He knows what he likes, he knows what he desires, but he has difficulty in expressing it clearly.  Thus he plays the sax very poorly, but becomes drawn to Anne’s art style because she can express things so clearly.

backtrack 1
PROTECT ME FROM WHAT I WANT

The film becomes a sort of “opposite’s attract” love story, with a dose of Stockholm syndrome thrown in for good measure.  The plot is about artist Anne witnessing a mob murder, then being chased by the mob, the police, and the mob hitman Milo.  Milo eventually tracks her down, but decides to keep her as his own rather than kill her.  Over time, they both fall in love with each other, and attempt to flee the mob and the police together.  There are a few ways to interpret this, one of which is the happy union of the literal and the abstract.  Of having art daring to try something different, something many may find controversial.  Of having two art forms together that shouldn’t be together, that just don’t match up.  But the thing about art is that it is subjective.  Some will enjoy various forms more than others.  And sometimes the strangest combinations can work.  In the case of the film, the idea that Stockholm syndrome can work; in that regard, I state that this film was ahead of it’s time before Beauty and the Beast made that shit popular.  And come on, not everything can turn out like The Collector (1965).

There is also a reference to D.H. Lawrence in this film, which is ironic not because he expressed similar themes about relationships in his works, but also because his works were also subject to censorship and misrepresentation.  It’s as if the controversy surrounding this film only helps to make its point, though it would be nice if the DC was around in some modern streaming service or on DVD/Blu-Ray so others to appreciate it.

“Passion’s a hard thing to conceal.”

Let’s get back on track here (heheh).  Anne’s LED signs have an affect on Milo.  Signs with messages such as:

LACK OF CHARISMA CAN BE FATAL

EVEN YOUR FAMILY CAN BETRAY YOU

MEET DREAMS YOU CAN’T RESIST

CALM IS MORE CONDUCTIVE TO CREATIVITY THAN IS ANXIETY

PROTECT ME FROM WHAT I WANT

The art inspires him, makes him want to change his life.  But being a hitman who has difficulty in expressing himself, that’s kind of difficult to do (obviously).  And on top of that, he becomes self-aware at how much he sucks (or more appropriately, blows) at playing the sax.  So he opts for kidnapping her, after being influenced to do so in a manner she mentions in an audio recording he gets a hold of, where she says:

“I don’t know if I can be with people I don’t know, if I’m fit for it anymore.  I’m cut off and I’m losing my connection.  I do have this fantasy.  There’s a man in the dark.  I can see his face.  He’s got a scarf around my neck and I know I’m gonna die.  And nothing else makes any difference.  I realize now that I’m selfish and I’ve always been selfish, and that’s fine.  […]  This time I actually believe I’m safe.  No one knows where I am, and eventually this will all be forgotten, and I’ll be forgotten too.”

So when he comes to kidnap her, he does so in the method she envisions.  He handcuffs her and wraps a scarf around her neck.  He then gives her the choice of being killed by him, or by living, but belonging to him.  She takes the second choice.  Thus Milo is fulfilling a desire within her, while also fulfilling his own desire.  Yet she is against this at first (understandably), and does not warm up to Milo at all for a long period of time.

backtrack 1

But as the film progresses from there, she eventually begins to accept her internal desires, and begins to accept Milo.  The literal and the abstract begin to intermix, and both become more accepting of each other’s views; though they get in an argument over the validity of the way each view art, and how meaningful their lives are whether together or as individuals; it is more-or-less reconciled soon after, as if the film doesn’t really give a shit about that typical moment in romance films where the inevitable temporal break-up happens before the inevitable reconciliation.  The film is attempting to be different after all, and could be said to be somewhat satirizing other films of that type of genre.

Which brings me to the other meaning to be had outside of abstract vs. literal art styles.  As stated earlier, it is a film that cries out to be different because it’s bored with the average Hollywood fluff that comes out regularly.  So the film itself opts to be different, not just with the progression of the plot and subject matter (Stockholm syndrome works), but also changing genres at various intervals.  It goes from being a thriller, to a slow-burn character study, to a teen romance (I’ll expand on that in a moment), to an action shoot-em-up, and having a happy ending in spite of the odds and how it seems to go against what had been built up during the first half (at least on an initial watch; it does fit together when looking at it from a critical stand-point, barring leaps in logic).  It attempts to make it so that either it gives you an ending you don’t expect, or an ending you’re not bored with even if it is expected.

Which brings me to the overall theme of the film, relating to the title Backtrack.  In one sense, it’s about backtracking to what made us enjoy films in the first place at an earlier age at an earlier time.  Particularly that of the 70s, and anything pre-Hay’s Code mid-1930s, and in the modern context, much of what has come since 2012 (personally, I think films have largely lost there edge at some point between 2006-2012, depending on how strict you are about film quality and allowing studios/directors to take chances with respectable budgets).  Just let the film-makers run wild and do what they want how they want, and come what may.  A cry for freedom, for independent film-making.  While the film’s cries may not have been heard, given that it bombed in theaters and was re-edited to make the theme convoluted, if not entirely absent, they were cries shared by others which lead to the indie film movement of the 90s.

The alternative way to look at the term backtrack is with how the characters go from being mature to immature during the 2nd act, primarily during the 2nd sexual encounter between Milo and Anne.  They go from being mature adults, who have been conditioned to lock away all childish thoughts and impulses over the years, to regressing back into a child-like state.  It’s like how college kids (or even teenage kids) who are in one of their first relationships would interact.  How they laugh and giggle, and how they become more care-free about the world (even though the dangers of reality creep in off and on with the mafia goons catching up to them).  They even bicker like teenagers at one or two points.  The backtrack refers to going back from adulthood to childhood.  Because children are more easily pleased, more easily entertained, than adults.  They possess something that is missing from adults which can make them more closed off and isolated.  They don’t have those walls built around them which are slowly but surely built as they age, especially in schools.  It’s something that was preached in Pink Floyd’s The Wall.  To backtrack is to tear it down.  Embrace what allowed you to embrace the joys found in childhood.  It is what can allow you to not be alone, to not become isolated.  But this doesn’t work if it’s one-sided.  Others can only be as accepting if they are just as free of this thought-control.  In order for that to happen, the current life must die in order for the new life to arise, like a phoenix.  The film represents this with the native american ceremony, the burning of the pilgrim, who represents people in general.

And when you think about it, don’t we all have our own innate desires that may be considered abnormal, or even taboo?  Some women want to be dominated by a macho man who can take charge.  Some men want to have a woman in a slave-like role.  Many want to have someone who can change their life for the better, even if it is done in extreme manners that usually only work out well in your head.  Some things that teenagers daydream about.   And in the end, all children enjoy seeing a happy ending.

It is a way of life Anne didn’t consciously realize she wanted.  She finds a piece of pottery under the dirt at this theater house in New Mexico, something she doesn’t understand yet, something she wasn’t actively looking for.  Then later on in the movie, she finds a matching set of pottery in an entirely different location (this may have implications within the literal context of the film, but I’m not sure myself).  Thus she realizes she has found something she didn’t even know she was looking for, which is fixing something she didn’t realize was broken.

One last thing before ending the analysis.  There comes a point in this movie where Jodie Foster’s character finds and cares for a lamb.  I shit you not.  And this came before she did the film Silence of the Lambs.  Good God, how can one not watch this portion of the movie without making jokes or puns?  But anyway, the film makes some symbolism of this by showing a statue of some woman with a lamb at the mob boss’ house, the mob boss being Vincent Price (someone make a Vincent Price as Hannibal Lector meme please, I’m begging ya’).

 

Issues With The Movie

Now as great as this all sounds, the film isn’t without its issues (putting aside TC and DC differences).  The helicopter action scene is mediocre at best.  There’s a moment where Milo leaves his sax behind before driving away from the cabin to run from the mafia, yet he has the sax back during the end credits (maybe he bought a new one).  Dennis Hopper may not have been the best choice to play Milo; he’s not terrible, but he seems a little too off and awkward even for his character.  And the ending is a bit far-fetched, but one could argue the reason those mob bosses put themselves in such a vulnerable state is because Vincent Price basically wanted them all to do, along with Milo, and coerced them into confronting Milo on their own.  This isn’t explicitly stated at all, but one could reach that conclusion with the dirty cop twist.  Still, would’ve been nice to have seen that conversation.

Some argue that the film falls apart and becomes stupid during the second half without how the dialogue and character interaction get, but I chalk that up to the whole Backtrack theme.  Of course the dialogue becomes more childish and less intelligent.  They’re backtracking!  As to whether that will be to your tastes, that’s up to you.

 

TC vs. DC

The music is different and far worse in the TC.  Both versions contain scenes that aren’t in the other, though the DC is the overall lengthier film.  Ultimately, the TC tries to make the film out to be some off-kilter action/thriller/romance flick, but it comes off as more awkward than the DC intended, and that’s saying a lot.  At first it sets up the feel that Anne isn’t in to Milo at all, to the point where he rapes her during their first encounter, that she berates him (as opposed to just messing with him in a lighthearted manner) during the second encounter.  Then next thing you know, she’s laughing with him and enjoying herself with him.  It comes out of the blue as opposed to the more gradual development seen in the DC.  Granted, it’s still a strange thing to see, the whole Stockholm thing working out, but at least the DC makes a better effort at it.  And they make it seem like Milo is an expert sax player in the TC, which contradicts that abstract-literal art theme which the TC pretty much tosses aside.  Lastly, they downplay (if not altogether remove) any hint that the movie is attempting to subvert expectations, to be a satire of mainstream film, or at the very least something that attempts to do something different just for the sake of doing something different, making that one of the main messages.  It does so by removing some of the LED light art which spells this out for the viewer.

backtrack 1
‘insert Vincent Price Hanibal impression here’

Take a look at how this scene differs greatly between the TC and DC versions of the film.  It’s amazing how much a difference in editing/pacing/music can change a scene.

 

Overall

Highly recommended movie, so long as it’s the DC version you’re watching.  It’s different and fun.  It’s something wants to be taken seriously, and yet doesn’t want to take things so seriously.  It’s an intentional fun contradiction.  A film made by an adult for adults who want to release a bit of their inner-child, while Joe Pesci is screaming fuck fucker motherfucker and motherfucking every other second he’s on the screen.  Plus you get to see Jodie Foster naked, which is incredible because I didn’t think that was possible.

 

 

PS: It is worth mentioning that the character Anne Benton is inspired off the real-life artist Jenny Holzer, who has been doing similar art styles since the 70s, and is still around today doing her own kind of art as far as I know.  Even the line, PROTECT ME FROM WHAT I WANT is something that made her famous.  Seems as if she had an admirer in Dennis Hopper.

 

PPS: Jodie Foster probably did Silence of the Lambs after this just to spite the film, because she didn’t enjoy working on it.

 

Other recommendations for more on this film:

http://www.stockholmfilmfestival.se/en/festival/1991/film/backtrack

http://regrettablesincerity.com/?p=7151

https://mikestakeonthemovies.com/2018/07/13/backtrack-1990/

https://projectorhasbeendrinking.blogspot.com/2015/09/protect-me-from-what-i-want.html

https://dcpfilm.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/catchfire-hopper-1990/

If It’s Cyber-War They Want, It’s Cyber-War They’ll Get!

So yesterday InfoWars got banned practically simultaneously across several social media platforms.  While I’ve never been too much of a fan of them myself, especially with how nutty Alex Jones is, this is something I don’t condone for the reasons these companies have stated.  The following companies who have banned InfoWars include:

iTunes
Spotify
Facebook
YouTube
MailChimp
Stitcher
Pinterest
LinkedIn

I’ve never had an iTunes, Spotify, MailChimp, Stitcher, or Pinterest account, so that’s no bother for me to ignore them from now on.  Facebook, I’ve just deleted my account which I’ve had deactivated (by myself intentionally, Facebook didn’t deactivate my account against my will) over the past several months.  Fuck them, and fuck Zuckerberg.

YouTube, well, I’m not going to go so far as to stop using that platform altogether.  After all, there are plenty of users using that platform who are just as outraged over this Orwellian tactic of censorship as I am, and are making videos expressing their frustration, and I’d hate to stop supporting them.  So I’ll stick with YouTube, for now, but I’ve got an account up on BitChute just in case, and Vimeo, and DailyMotion.

LinkedIn, you’re fired.  You’ve never helped me get a job anyway (I’ve done just fine without you), and you’re Google owned anyway.

And for a bonus mention, there’s also a website called YouPorn that has also banned InfoWars.  I’m not going to bother questioning why their content would be on that site, though I find it amusing to imagine the scenarios.  But one thing is for sure, there’s plenty of other websites to jack off to, including my own.

Thumbnail

I’ll also be setting up accounts at alternative social media sites such as Gab.ai, MeWe.com, and Minds.com.

I don’t condone the banning and censoring of a platform just because one disagrees with their news and opinions.  They say it’s because they promote hate speech; to that I say take a good look at 30% of all the other people that utilize your services, and see how much of a cocksucking hypocrite you really are.  What they really mean is, “We are banning these people because their politics don’t agree with ours, and their news articles aren’t biased in the way we want them to be biased.”

So I’m going to retaliate.  I’m going to download the InfoWars app just out of spite.  I’m going to visit their website more often (some of their news articles aren’t half bad; Alex Jones isn’t the only guy doing things there, he can be avoided if he’s too much for you).  And I’m going to go about transitioning from Gmail to other mail services.  Maybe ProtonMail, or Zoho, or something.  And I sure as shit ain’t giving any of the websites who banned InfoWars a penny of my money.  Because they’re not just going to stop with InfoWars if they see they can get away with it, especially just a few months from a midterm election.  They want to see if they can get away with this and censor others, like what Youtube and Facebook and Twitter have been doing in the past, only on a smaller scale.  They’re already trying to do something similar to Fox News, among others.  They want to ban/censor all conservative sites, and all conservative speakers.  They’ve raised the stakes.  I say many others should do likewise against them.

If people thought Death of a Nation was too far-fetched before…

Thumbnail

 

PS: Goddamnit!  I fucking hate it when it comes to shit like this.  I didn’t want this!  I didn’t want to live in a time where censorship gets so extreme it starts affecting politics and elections!  I didn’t want to get into a position where I’m defending InfoWars and fucking Alex Jones!  It’s forcing me to get more political than I am now.  And it’s also encouraging me to use the Brave web browser as opposed to Chrome or Firefox.  This is bullshit!

 

SJWs attackers proving the point of Death of a Nation, and a note on BitChute

And it turns out these assholes are just proving the point of that film Death of a Nation.  August 4, 2018, the pro-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon gets attacked by ANTIFA thugs, and results in at least one person getting his skull cracked open and pouring out blood (he lived).  You know, like the black shirts in Pre-WWII Italy did to other peaceful protesters and assemblies.

And on top of that, YouTuber Jeremy Hambly (of the channel The Quartering) gets attacked by an SJW at GenCon, allegedly by a guy who wears a “Punch Nazis” T-ShirtAt GenCon.  At a boardgaming convention.  In my type of atmosphere, my type of hobby.  It’s not just limited to filmgoers and film critics, now we have board gamers to worry about.  The worst part is that this SJW thug is supposedly one of the people running a booth at GenCon, and owns a shop.  A police report is filed, Jeremy followed the proper procedures for GenCon in terms of reporting unacceptable activity such as harassment and violence (let alone assault), and GenCon officials do nothing.  The police so far do nothing.  Rather, GenCon would rather ban users from their Twitter feed who bring up the topic (90+ users last I checked), and YouTube would rather take down the video where Jeremy brought up the incident on his channel.  Thugs physically attacking people for their political beliefs, authorities not doing much to dissuade them, and media outlets covering it up as much as possible.  Tell me that’s not similar to the shit being brought up in this film?  Tell me this isn’t something that will lead us down to either a civil war, or the rise of a socialist dictatorship?

YouTube may have taken down the video [EDIT: not the case, see below], but that’s why alternatives such as BitChute exist.  And long story short, if you want to keep video evidence of something to support your arguments that you’ve found on YouTube, download it yourself.  Otherwise, it’s nice to have alternatives.  Try supporting BitChute just for the sake of having a platform alternative.  Though that being said, it’s based in the U.K., so it’s questionable if even this will last considering all that’s been going on down there.  Also, feel free to support Jeremy in his lawsuit:

https://www.gofundme.com/justice-for-jeremy-hambly

No pics or gifs this time.  Won’t be that kind of post (wouldn’t live up to the name Anomalous if I always did that).

 

PS: Another great link in regards to our path towards a new civil war, how this civil divide has happened, and what can be done to fix it:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/origins-of-second-civil-war-globalism-tech-boom-immigration-campus-radicalism/amp/

 

Edit (8-6-2018): Ok, so I read through The Quartering’s tweets, and it turns out he made those YouTube videos “private” for now in an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating until the legal endeavor is over.  YouTube didn’t take those videos down.  That being said, I still support BitChute because there were (multiple) times in the past where YouTube did in fact block videos or have them removed (sometimes an entire channel, like the recent InfoWars), while BitChute has remained reliable (even if their “streams” aren’t always stable).

Migrating from Facebook (plus a pre-2016-election debate)

For about a year now, I’ve been looking for an excuse to get out of Facebook; delete my account.  I haven’t really been using it to catch up with or communicate with friends I’ll likely never see again.  Been mostly using it just for news updates.  Well, considering how they’ve been biased about news posts, even going to far as to delete posts and accounts that are conservative leaning, acting like hypocrites, showing how fucking political and biased they are, I’ve just been waiting for the one thing to nudge me far enough to say, “Fuck it.”  Well, even though I kinda knew this to some extent, there’s the whole data collection thing that has exploded, news of them doing this with Obama and Trump, but trying to do it for Obama’s advantage more than for Trump (even though I find it questionable no matter who they’re doing it for).  So, fuck it.  My days on there are numbered, and it’ll likely only last for one more week.

But before I do that, I’m going to carry over a conversation I had in 2016 with a college history professor on Facebook, a professor of whom I was a student of many years ago.  That’s all I’ll say about it.  I won’t give any names, but some of you nosey fucks will likely track down the quotes and get the names anyway, and there isn’t much I can do about that.  Whatever.

This long-running rivalry/debate proved to be a turning point for me in my life, where my eyes got opened to just how ignorant people can be.  And it resulted in me becoming more political, which is something I hate being.  But the times call for such a thing, because times require the average person to have some knowledge in politics considering how desperate things are getting at times (depending on where you live).  The fact that society got to the point where Hillary Clinton was that close to getting elected says something.

So, here’s the debate (I am “Me”, the teacher is “Professor”, anyone else is Commenter #1, #2, #3, etc.; any reference to my real name will be replaced with “Anomalous Host”, and their names will be replaced accordingly).  Keep in mind I’m not as well-knowledged about these things then as I am now.  Keep in mind, I wished him a happy birthday in August 2016, prior to the rest of these posts.  Oh, and one other thing.  Going back to these older posts has just reinforced my decision to leave Facebook.  Why?  Because those motherfuckers took down some of the posts and comments made in this half-year-long discussion we’ve had, and some posts I know I made independent of the discussion that are now gone.  Mark Zuckerberg can go fuck himself, right up his pro-censorship dickhole:

 

August 8, 2016

Me:“Not voting is a vote for Trump!” or “Not voting is a vote for Hillary!”

Rubbish! Voting for neither, or not voting at all, is still a statement on what you want from the leaders of this country! You want to make a statement by not choosing either of the 2 evils, vote for an independent:

Don’t Throw Away Your Vote By Voting Trump or Hillary; TheAntiMedia.org

 

Up to this point, me and the professor got into a back-and-forth regarding Obama’s handling of ISIS.  Couldn’t locate those posts (because they got removed by Facebook), but what follows is all that remains.

 

August 13, 2016

Professor: Anomalous Host might note that this isn’t POTUS’ first rodeo.

I double-checked on this before I posted it.

BREAKING: President Obama Flips Trump The Bird As American Airstrike Kills ISIS Leader (DETAILS); BiPartisanReport.com

 

August 14, 2016

Me: Been doing some thinking since my debate with Professor. Regarding the state of the Middle East. He’s right in that we can’t really afford a full scale war. But at the same time, I don’t believe we can afford to stay completely out of it either. I think Obama has been forced into a compromise that could potentially lead to something that works, that can hopefully continue into the next presidency, whoever ends up winning.

America Can’t Do Much About ISIS; TheAtlantic.com

Professor: This is a well-written piece; I agree with several of the points.

 

August 17, 2016

Me: This Is What The War Against ISIS Really Looks Like; Buzzfeed.com

 

October 10, 2016

Professor: The word from the bird. ” Most guys respect women, some guys don’t, but never have I heard anyone use your particularly disgusting brand of sadism that refers to women as objects and not people. Even the most debauched club-hopping party animal talks about women more civilly than you.”

Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room.; Vox.com

 

October 11, 2016

Me: For those who don’t think election fraud isn’t a real thing:

 

Professor: Oh, no, Anomalous Host, I *do* think it isn’t a real thing.

Professor: So it’s casual convo on a hidden cam. The Exclusionary rule notwithstanding, where are the convictions, Anomalous Host? This is just him ranting about how bad “those people” are.

Me: Where are the convictions for Trump?

Professor: We’re talking about election fraud. Where are convictions?

Me: North Texas woman arrested for voter fraud; Star-Telegram.com

Professor: Got it.  Lightning Strikes more common in Texas than in-person voter fraud,; Politifact.com

Me: Has amnesty been as commonplace in the past as it has in the past 2 years?

Professor: The largest amnesty is Simpson-Mazzioli.  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – Wikipedia

Me: No large arrests either time huh? Because it doesn’t happen, or because it’s not enforced?  The Voter-ID Myth Crashes; NationalReview.com

Professor: Of course the National Review would accuse Dems of abetting voter fraud.

Me: Says the guy who uses Wikipedia as a source. Would the Washington Times be more satisfactory?  Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to register,; WashingtonTimes.com

Professor: We’re done here.

Me: Bye bye.

 

I mean seriously, a college history professor using wikipedia as a source?  Most of them (at least back when I was in college) wouldn’t wipe their ass with a report that used wikipedia as a source.

 

October 12, 2016

We cannot change society without changing our own behavior. If we want to change, we have to change. Imgur.com

 

October 15, 2016

Commenter #1: Wow. So, this was just for fun it wasnt supposed to mean anything. I certainly apologize that this post has offended you so much. While I believe in being open to people with different views politically, socially and religiously, I feel that such a tirade is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Commenter #2:Who tiraded? It was like 3 sentences. But seriously folks, this voter fraud bullshit from drumpf’s camp is baseless and dangerous and we have an obligation to shut it down.

Professor:The human blobby has ways to shut that kind of thing down.

Me: @Commenter #2 I wouldn’t say baseless. The whole stealing from Bernie nomination aside, George Soros is a Clinton donor after all, and he’s in charge of the voting machines in 16 major states.  George Soros-funded group serves as poll-watcher in 16 states; WashingtonTimes.com

Commenter #2:There’s so much glaringly, obviously, horribly wrong with drumpf that Clinton won’t have to commit fraud.

 

October 16, 2016

Me: This is disgraceful. No matter who you support, this shouldn’t happen to either side:

North Carolina GOP Office burned, graffiti sprayed nearbye; Yahoo.com

 

October 17, 2016

Me: I’m A Sexual Assault Victim Who Still Supports Trump; TheFederalist.com

 

October 17, 2016

Me: Devious, aren’t they? The more of this you watch, the more pissed you’re going to get. Remember that “69 year old woman with oxygen tank punched in face at Trump rally” story? Apparently, she was trained to birddog. So are others who are mentally ill and such, paid by the DNC (or a faction of it). Despicable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

 

October 24, 2016

CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year; LosAngeles.CBSLocal.com

 

I have vague recollections of some other conversations we had over Facebook between then and the next entry.  At some point, me and the professor talked about the pros and cons of the border wall, and more or less agreed to disagree, citing sources that showed how Israel built a wall that successfully kept out enemies in the past, while other countries like China and, I think, even Rome built walls and were less successful at keeping immigrants out.  Basically, for every source brought up that supported my side of the argument, the professor could bring up one that supported his side.  I think it’s situational and dependent on the situation as to whether or not border walls work (where the wall is located, if it’s during a time of war, the technology available, are there waterways, etc.).  Also got into a brief discussion regarding guns, and how some random cunt showed up to say something along the lines of how all men shouldn’t be allowed to have guns but all women should.

Also, I brought up some negative points on Hillary Clinton, we went back and forth on them, he didn’t read my links in details (and I don’t think he even read some of the links he brought up in detail either, since I read whatever he brought up, made a response to it, and he responded as if the post was pure unquestionable truth even though I brought up valid points that debunked it).  So I was getting a bit frustrated with him at this point, as he didn’t seem to be taking my anywhere near as seriously as I was taking him.

The below thread I initially posted in response to Professor continually bringing up the news of Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old in, I don’t know, around 1990 or something at some rich guy’s place during a party.  In some past post/thread, I made an argument on Bill Clinton’s sexual accusers, and the professor said it didn’t matter because he was never convicted or proven guilty of those crimes.  Keep that in mind.

 

November 5, 2016

Me: @Professor: Well, guess this is off the table.  Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit.; TheGuardian.com

Professor: OK

Professor: This leaves…..how many women who have made accusations?

Me: Less than the number that made accusations against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. As you have stated several times in their defense, just because someone makes an accusation doesn’t make the accusation true. There should be evidence. Or by your standards, a conviction.

Professor: The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet; TheAtlantic.com

Me: You know, the last time we got into a discussion like this, I made a similar post about Hillary, which you dismissed as a hack job and virtually ignored it. I’d like to know if you’re going to do the same here, and if not, why I should treat this post with anymore respect than how you’ve treated mine?

Professor: I remember the Clinton era and the continuous attacks on the Clintons. Essentially, it was this. Since the right did not have any substantive issues on which to attack Clinton, they assaulted his character. In case you don’t recall, the entire Clinton administration passed without one single indictment. Clinton did the US a great deal of good and had solid, decent policy ideas. Trump has nothing, and this is horribly disturbing. I sat through eight years of attacks on a decent man, Bill Clinton. I don’t regard these endless decades of attacks as anything but revenge by a Right that keeps losing and losing and losing, and which has no agenda save tax cuts for the rich, which have damaged this nation a great deal.

Me: I could say the same in this regard about Trump. Nothing substantive to attack him on, so they attack his character. As for nothing substantive with the Clintons, let me try this again. Many women have made allegations against Clinton some settled, some decided to become silent. It’s quite similar to the whole Trump debacle going on when it comes to the women of his past. In both cases, they’re nothing solid enough to be proven to be true, there’s only the word of the women. But then there’s something like this:

Professor: But as I said, Clinton had policies which concretely helped this country. Trump has none whatsoever and can’t explain any that he might have.

Me: I talked about how he does in an earlier discussion. Don’t you remember? How I believe his tax plan is better for the economy than Clinton’s?

Commenter #1: on a side note President Clinton was empeached by congress. that really happened.

Commenter #2: Bill Clinton was impeached by a Congress led by folks doing the same thing they were accusing him of doing. See Newt Gingrich. They spent $70 million or so tax dollars on this, which probably makes that the most expensive BJ on the planet. And the Republicans forced us to pay for it. Plus impeachment is the process of making a formal charge. It is not a conviction. As I recall, no conviction happened, right?

Professor: Anomalous Host, I read it. His tax plan is tax cuts for the rich- Reaganomics all over again. It did not work in the 80s. Doesn’t now.

Me: Glad you brought that up. Remember that site you posted in one of our past discussions that demonstrated how the economy supposedly did better under democratic leadership, though with no explanation as to why that is? I think Reaganomics and Bill Clinton are a perfect example for one of the reasons. It isn’t something that worked right away, true, because that’s the nature of trickle down economics. Eventually all of his Reganomics policies went into effect, and then Bill Clinton came into office to reap the benefits of it as the positives of the policy started coming to fruition. In other words, Democratic leaders piggy back off the economic policies of the Republican predecessors.

I’m interested in discussing more on that topic.

Me: Care to watch any of Clinton Cash? At least the part that talks about Haiti?

Commenter #2: Haiti was a disaster for all of the major charities. The Red Cross took in millions of dollars for Haiti, and built like 6 houses. The Clinton Foundation has supplied medicine, etc to vast swathes of humanity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, however, if they suffered similar issues with aid to Haiti as the Red Cross did.

Professor: Anomalous Host, that makes no sense at all. Reaganomics only works for Democrats, who do the opposite of Reaganomics? Then why did the nations who used Keynesian principles recover from the Great Depression? While those who didn’t failed to recover? This is trolling.

Me: @Professor: I don’t see how that makes no sense considering this isn’t just some theory I made up. Look, here’s how my mind works. If someone brings up some point of view, some subject, some policy that I don’t agree with, I express why. If some evidence is brought up that supports their view, I research to see how strong that evidence is. If there’s something that seems to refute it, I bring it up. If I can’t find anything that refutes it, or if all other refutations seem too weak to consider, I relent and slowly come to accept that other policy/view/subject. Now prior to you bringing it up, I didn’t know that much about Reagonomics. So I looked it up, saw that there are people who agree and disagree on whether or not it was successful, focused mostly on the portions that state why it was successful, but also looked at some of the arguments which state why it was not. So after doing that looking, I made a response in a very simplified and generalized way that supports the theory that is held by supporters of Reaganomics that made sense to me. If there is a fault in that theory, believe me, I want to know about it, and I fully expected you to let me know about it so I can research it a little more. Because it’s conversations like this that encourage me to research and gain knowledge and know how to respond if I’m in a future debate like this with someone else, which may in turn influence how I see politics and thus influence how I vote in the future. I don’t call you a troll for bringing up points that I disagree with if they are points worth addressing. Keynesian economics is also something that I didn’t know anything about until I started looking it up for the past dozen minutes. So now I’m more aware of it, and aware of the arguments for and against it, like how the expenditures in WWII helped get us out of the depression because war expenditures are Keynesian in nature. But there’s also the fact that too much regulation on business can stifle business. Plus it makes one wonder why there isn’t more regulation on loans and credit since those have proven to be the main things that lead to a depression in the first place. And I wonder if Reagonomics is really THAT much different from Keynesian principles. I don’t know all the facts, and I don’t pretend to. The reason why I choose to get into conversations like this is to probe for information, to learn information, see if it sways me from one point of view to another. I don’t always choose to relegate my time to doing so. And I know you don’t either, since you don’t seem to read many, if any, of the links I bring up to other sites that support my position, even though I read each and every one of yours. But I can understand and respect that if you’re a busy man and don’t have the time to do that. But I find it disrespectful for you to not take my position seriously, not to take my arguments seriously, brush off several of them as hack jobs and trolling that should be ignored because they threaten to burst that protective titanium bubble you live in. And I find it very disrespectful for you to call me a troll when I am trying to have a conversation I can learn from. And I’m not going to continue having conversations like this with you if you continue to treat me with such disrespect.

Me: @Commenter #2: Hillary Clinton’s State Department would oversee the reconstruction effort in Haiti. Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was responsible for the allocation of US tax dollars. Bill Clinton, appointed special envoy to Haiti for the UN, was named co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission along with the Haiti prime minister. The Clintons had the interest of special donors in mind. Haitians were largely left out of the decision-making process in the IHRC. $124 million was used on project Caracol, was supposed to create 60,000 jobs and economic growth. This was done on the northern part of Haiti as opposed to the southern part where the damage was done from the 2010 earthquake/hurricane. Beneficiaries of this were Gap, Target, and Walmart, to name a few. Factory in Caracol was built, and the beneficiary companies profited off of it with the low-wage workers, and this left the rest of Haiti minimally affected. There’s more to add, but that’s a start. Is any of that false?

 

There were likely other posts, and I really wanted to find them and bring them over, but there are at least 2 threads made that had relatively good discussions in them that are lost forever (or at least kept hidden in the private Facebook database).  So because Facebook took those down, on top of the other bullshit it’s been doing over the past few years, I’m taking down my account a week from now.  Will this reduce my site coverage?  Probably, but I don’t really care right now.  Having my normal profile and my site page on Facebook isn’t helping its exposure all that much either.

Plus, honestly, social media isn’t all that healthy, and it can be addictive.  Well, on that note, onto Gab.ai, and Minds.com.

Why I’m cancelling Netflix because of Bill Nye

You fuckers. You cunts. You cocksuckers. I was willing to tolerate the switch from the 5 star rating system to the thumbs up/down system (likely) due to the poor ratings of the Amy Schumer Special. I was willing to put up with a lot of the shitty movies on your network for the sake of finding some diamonds in the rough, and for some decent shows/series. I was willing to put up with a lot, but I won’t put up with this. They have censored an episode of the old 90s show Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Update 7/9/2017: yep, and there goes one video. But where one falls, another rises:

Why would they do this? Simple but stupid. Bill Nye has recently gone on this radical-left PC pandering to LGBQT binge with some of his latest stuff, which contradicts what he’s said in the old 90s show. Rather than just say something like, “I was wrong then but I’m right now,” or ignoring criticism, somehow someway, Netflix has taken it upon themselves to censor a bit from an old episode which states how there are XX and XY chromosomes that makes 2 genders, male and female, in the vain hope that people will forget that he has ever said this, contradicting his current stance. Fuck him, and fuck Netflix. I’m cancelling the subscription. I don’t care what anyone’s stance is on the whole gender fluidity issue, censorship like this should never be tolerated under any circumstance.

PS: Wanna bet that this youtube video I’ve embedded above is going to be taken down within a week? Hell, let’s raise the stakes, wanna bet it will be taken down within 2 days?