American Deep State (2019) review

So I received a message from The Strasson Group to watch an early screening of and review their film American Deep State: The Movie.  A documentary about the Deep State and its war on Trump since the 2016 election, and up to when the film was released.  Well, this might not be the review they were hoping for.  Might not get paid for this as a result.

Rated: 1 / 5   2 / 5 *

* : with a big caveat, see below

So the film begins with the usual bru-hahah, mention of the 18th amendment with the whole “equal treatment under the law” thing which it of course is building up to be bullshit by today’s standards (assuming those standards were ever met to begin with). Plus talk of the JFK assassination, and mentioning how every conspiracy theory around the assassination involved the CIA to some extent. Then mentioning how the Trump administration blocked the scheduled release of declassifying the Kennedy assassination documents and delaying their availability to the public, even after all these years (makes you wonder who is alive today that was involved, or if it’s more about an organization that was involved and still around today). And it talks about all the organizations these conspiracy theories bring up about it, including the mafia, the KGB, CIA, FBI, Fidel Castro, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc. Guess what group this documentary decided to leave out? The people running the Fed, the big banker groups like the Rothchilds and such. That’s a big thing to leave out if you’re going to cover several bases in brief, especially when Kennedy was preparing to sign a bill that would remove the Federal Reserve and the dollar currency and replace it with something else.  After all, he took some inspiration from Hitler’s methods of making his country nationalist-socialist by removing the big Jewish banks and making his country a powerhouse (something Dinesh D’Souza’s Death of a Nation documentary can attest to, that JFK and the Democrats were inspired by Hitler’s policies for a time, up until the headlines reported on the holocaust atrocities). Consider my skepticism raised at this point.

The first portion of the documentary covers the conspiracy of the JFK assassination (not exactly original at this point, it should be taken for granted that most are skeptical at the very least about the official story).  But this does have the advantage of utilizing sources of the newly released government documents (as of 2017; still excluding the documents under classification that should’ve been released), which the film indicates that the CIA was directly involved with the assassination.  Now I just wonder if the documentary is going to imply a rogue CIA group acted alone on this, or if some other organization is pulling some CIA strings.

It portrays the Kennedies in a positive light, which is a mistake.  No documentary should ever assume anyone they cover is pure and innocent and well-intentioned, especially if they’re a politician (or even a lawyer).  They even have a “Moment of Silence” bit for the Kennedies.  Well, considering I usually watch these movies quietly, they’ve got that.  But too offset all this, here’s a bit from Lexx (Season 4, Episode 4):

 

Anyway, 30 minutes into the film, and it finally gets to more recent events.  It’s a by-the-numbers coverage of Trump vs. the Deep State which anyone who has read any headlines from websites like The Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Blacklisted News, youtubers like The Red Elephants, Black Pilled, Black Pigeon Speaks, etc. basically has a decent idea about.  But this documentary goes a bit on the in-depth side of it, but not in the most efficient way.  It utilizes a bunch of still photos of websites, stock news footage, etc, yet never really utilizes graphics, still photos of heads with names and line links to organizations and/or other people.  It’s more tell than show.  Not the best method for a documentary like this, which is basically a glorified youtube movie (like Europa: The Last Battle, except that film was done better).

There’s also a lot of lines that are all, “likely this” or “possibly that.”  Comes off like Michael Moore at times.

The music tracks that continually plays throughout the film get tiring real fast as well.  They needed something more subtle and atmospheric, as opposed to booming choir vocals.  I swear, it gets so distracting at times it becomes difficult to hear the narrator.  Plus the audio tends to cut off abruptly at times between scene changes.  Did I mention this isn’t made all that well?  But in all fairness, the narrator sounds good and speaks clearly, when you can hear him.

It also briefly covers heavily worn ground about Trump’s election, and how no one really thought he would be elected (again, covered by Death of a Nation, and even then it was getting to be old news).  And stuff covered by that documentary Clinton Cash.

bq-5c9b4f695d1d8

Trump getting wiretapped, controversy with Comey, war on terror during Bush administration, bullshit with the Obama administration, radical Islam, news media working hand in hand with the liberal agenda, MI6, etc.  All that stuff, and they don’t mention a few significant figures.  The big one being George Soros.  Why the fuck isn’t that asshole mentioned, when he’s financially responsible for half the shit going wrong in the United States?  In fact, why isn’t ANTIFA mentioned either?  Both of them have links to the Deep State (you could say George Soros is one of the main members of the Deep State, and he’s one of the financiers of ANTIFA, let alone illegal immigration).

591af695610c645bacdf48fd4433a3f7608de3ad8ca835a2aa4c2704e0c27cfe

Bottom line, this film doesn’t cover anything new or relevant enough to preach to someone like me who they believe would be a choir boy (plus it’s too simplistic).  And it’s not made well enough to pull anyone in who is of the opposing side.  The quality isn’t that great, it runs for too long (2 hours and 40 minutes total; Christ, I could be watching Ben-Hur, the Charlton Heston version), and it’s just not all that investing with how it’s done.  Make no mistake, there is enough content to have a decent historical informative documentary.  But the execution is poor.

It’s not as informative as it should be.  It’s not entertaining.  It gets boring real fast (and annoying soon after).  And despite me being on the side of the stuff this documentary preaches, I can’t recommend it.

 

 

PS: So about that 2 / 5 rating.  I feel bad about previously giving it a 1 / 5 rating (a rating less than what I gave Ghostbusters 2016).  Especially with the monetary donation they gave me (which was honestly more than I was expecting).  Considering I don’t exactly disagree with the points the documentary makes, and because they asked nicely, and money sways people, I’ll boost the rating up a point.  That being said, I still don’t recommend the documentary.

Andrew Klavan of The Daily Wire is pissing me off.

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

— The Anomalous Host

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So… here I go:

Text response:

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

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

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

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

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

Video/audio response:

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

Star Wars: Prequel Trilogy (1999-2005) epic review

Yep it’s here.  Let’s do this.

unmask jar jar

So revisiting this trilogy after a few years, I have to admit, it’s a bit better than I remember.  Probably because I was too young to give a shit about the political elements.  And make no mistake, this trilogy is heavy handed with the political messaging.  Yet it succeeds in this regard, unlike The Last Cocksucking Jedi which made the serious mistake if injecting radical politics into the film without making them an integral part of not just the film’s plot, but of the entire trilogy’s plot.

Now, that being said, the prequel trilogy isn’t without its faults, and a few of them are serious, especially when compared to what was setup in the original trilogy.  The faults range from insulting to laughable to meh.

Rated: 3.5 / 5

So the opening text crawl states that the Jedi are guardians of peace and justice.  Guess it won’t be long before they fuck that up.

But anyway, the text crawl also starts more complicated than the originals.  There are mentions of politics, trade embargoes, taxes, etc.  It’s an early indication that this Star Wars trilogy will be more focused on such governmental aspects compared to the original trilogy.  While the original trilogy had indications of governmental/political struggles, that was more of a background element, while the foreground kept things focused on the journey of a young ambitious man who would fulfill his destiny of becoming a Jedi, and also redeem someone considered nonredeemable.  The prequel trilogy would bring the politics more to the forefront.  And to be honest, it seems appropriate to do so, considering that it’s also about the rise of the Galactic Empire, how the Clone Wars came to be, and the fall of the Republic (showing the time before the dark times, and how the dark times came to be).

“There is no civility, only politics.”

That being said, it’s not exactly the best opening text crawl out there to get audiences eager to see what would happen next.  “Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic due to a trade dispute.”  Oh God, the horror!  The humanity!  Not a trade dispute!  Holy shit, they better get their shit together before higher tariffs are implemented causing everyone in the Republic to have a hard time making ships and annoying dumbass robots!  It will be the end of us!

At least some nice words of wisdom have returned to the franchise.

“Master Yoda said I should be mindful of the future.”

“But not at the expense of the moment.”

Good stuff.  Is there more?  You bet there is.

Anyway, while this film does get a bad rap nowadays, particularly because of Jar Jar Binks (who I can tolerate better than the average movie-goer apparently, though there are two brief scenes that were completely unnecessary and added nothing to the film other than having immature slapstick humor), it still has plenty of awesome stuff in it that, in my opinion, allows it to surpass anything that the more recent (albeit incomplete) Star Wars trilogy has to offer (though just between you and me, I’m not considering this new trilogy to be canon, considering it’s being made by idiotic unoriginal politically-driven buffoons).

For starters, we get to see what the Republic was like, how things generally functioned “before the dark times,” and what the Jedi were capable of.  Great lightsaber play (even if it is too acrobatic for its own good, going more for the circus performance style than the grounded samurai style; though in all fairness anime pull this shit all the time, so…), good use of force powers that only builds on what we’ve already scene, not adding anything too new or too out there (which is a good thing).

And then there’s the pod race scene.  I love this entire sequence.  The lack of music for at least half of the race allows for great tension, letting the sound effects do the work much as they did for lightsaber battles in the OT (original trilogy), and as they did for the bike chase in Return of the Jedi.  One of the more intense and gripping bits in this whole film.  Plus it’s clear this sequence is paying homage to Ben Hur (the Charleton Heston one from the 50s, not the cocksucking 2016 remake).

And if nothing else, Lucas sure does know how to put on a finale.  The Duel of the Fates has gone down as one of the greatest fight sequences of all time, with the choreography between Kenobi and Maul and Rob Roy matched (if not surpassed) by the accompanying music by John Williams.  It’s nothing short of a masterpiece, and worth the price of admission alone.  And Darth Maul became one of the most famous villains in the franchise, just by his look and presence (along with that famously introduced dual-lightsaber), with very little dialogue spoken in the entire film.  Not to mention the other battles going on during this time.

Effort!  Honest to God effort!

Now, with that being said, when they encounter Darth Maul during the finale… it’s pretty stupid when you think about it.  What they do when he shows up is split up, having all non-Jedi take the “long way” to the throne room, while Kenobi and Qui-Gon fight Maul and have one of the most awesomely epic lightsaber duels in Star Wars history.  Now that sounds awesome and all, but why wouldn’t everybody just start unloading on this guy?  They’re all standing right in front of him.  Shoot him!  You have 2 Jedi to assist you!

Now for the problems I did have with this film.  The first thing that came up I had a problem with wasn’t Jar Jar, but R2-D2.  Not that he was on the ship they used to fly through the blockade (though that is a big coincidence he would just so happen to be there), but the commendation they gave this robot after saving the ship.  It’s bullshit, and R2’s presence only exists just to pander to fans of the OT.  And not only that, but from that point on R2 follows the protagonists practically wherever they go.  Even for a prequel trilogy, this is pushing it.  The only thing worse than that is seeing that Anakin Skywalker is the one responsible for building C3-PO.  Bloody hell mahn!  It’s ridiculous!  How did C3-PO become capable of speaking/understanding all those tens of thousands of alien languages?  Because Anakin taught him?  Bullshit, and loads of it!  The presence of those 2 robots insults me.  There is no good reason at all to include them.  Zip, nada.  They could’ve used any other random robots to fill in these roles.  Hell, C3-PO didn’t even need to be in this trilogy, considering he doesn’t do jack shit (at least he had a use in the OT).

As for the other problem, and you knew this was coming, the midi-chlorians.

“Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life-form that resides within all living cells.  […]  And we are symbionts with them.  […]  Life-forms living together for mutual advantage.  Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force.  They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force.  When you learn to quiet your mind, you’ll hear them speaking to you.”

Now, to be honest, I don’t think this is as bad of a concept as some people make it out to be.  When you analyze it, this isn’t saying the midi-chlorians are the Force, they are something else.  I guess you could say they are some concept of the soul, or at least something that allows any living organism to be tuned to the force, making them more likely to be force-sensitive, and thus able to utilize it.  With that said, this doesn’t belong in a Star Wars film.  If I wanted scientific explanations for how magic works (as opposed to a philosophical explanation), I’d watch fucking Star Trek.  Plus the main reason this was brought into the franchise (and no one really takes it seriously, nor should they) was for this whole Christ-birth metaphor for Anakin.  It’s fucking bullshit, and when all is said and done, the trilogy could have been done without bringing this up in the first place.  It’s as pointless as the, “There was no father,” line (ala the Christ metaphor).  Fuck you, you’re just saying that because you don’t want to admit the father is Jabba the Hutt or something.

“Mom, you say the biggest problem in this universe is that no one helps each other.”

Personally, I’d rather go with the definition of midi-chlorians given in this video.  It’s shorter, simpler, and makes more sense:

And that’s all, those are the only 2 major problems I had with this movie.  The only other issues I had were more minor annoyances than anything else.  Plus the great moments (the pod race, Duel of the Fates) more than make up for the bad moments.

“Greed can be a powerful ally.”

“Whenever you gamble my friend, eventually you’ll lose.”

And now for the last bit before moving on to the next film, the politics.  As I said earlier, politics has a greater presence in this trilogy compared to the OT, and it’s worth discussing, considering how relevant its message is.  So Palpatine (who is really Darth Sidious, the Sith Master; spoilers by the way) is behind the whole trade embargo, and utilized it as a way to gain power.  Because he is one of the ambassadors for Naboo, and instigated the conflict as a way to gain power in the Senate.  Whether Tatooine is left in turmoil, or if Padme lives or dies, is of no consequence.  He instigates fear and chaos, and exploits the weaknesses of the Senate to gain power.  And this is done when Padme realizes that the leaders of the Senate are unable to get things done efficiently in an adequate amount of time due to the corruption that is there.  Palpatine shows to her, truthfully, where the corruption lies.  That the Trade Federation has bought off some politicians, and thus has gained unfair political influence amidst the individuals running the Senate.  Because humans are imperfect and are corruptible.  Thus Padme makes her displeasure known publicly within the Senate, and calls for a new replacement to get things done, which the Senate overall agrees to, thus placing Palpatine in a higher position of power, though unknown to everyone he is more corrupted than anyone there.

“It is clear to me that the Republic no longer functions.  I pray you will bring sanity and compassion back to the Senate.”

But the political intrigue doesn’t end there.  The whole reason this move happens is because of fear of what would happen to her people, causing her to make a rash decision.  Plus, seeing all the other races and world ambassadors within the Senate, it becomes clear that the plight of Naboo is just on small piece in the whole galaxy.  Thousands of worlds, each with their own political structure, their own problems, their own issues.  One can perceive from this that the universe doesn’t revolve around what the protagonists are doing.  There are other events going on, providing rich material for spin-offs and fan-made novels/games/films.  More on that later.

“Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.”

This element of fear leading others to do rash things is extended to the Jedi Council, who sense fear in Anakin, which can cause him to do rash things as well (which will be seen in the sequel).  In addition, the Council itself has fears of the Sith and what they mean.  They are keepers of the peace, they do not wish to get involved in conflict unless absolutely necessary (thus they largely abstain from Naboo’s plight, because there is more going on outside of Naboo).  The Council does not wish to have Anakin trained, because he’s too old (pish posh), yet Qui-Gon decides to do it himself, going against the will of the council, similar to how Padme makes the move of promoting Palpatine, which goes against normal procedure. And it also shows signs of imperfection within the Jedi council.  Even in Obi-Wan, with how he reacts to Qui-Gon bringing Anakin with him off of Tatooine, shows imperfections within his character.

“Why do I have the feeling we’ve picked up some other pathetic life form?”

There are similarities and connections to a few plot threads in this film, elements that are enhanced upon a rewatch, especially after seeing the entire trilogy.  George Lucas had his game plan thought out from the get-go, before Episode I started filming, and it shows.  Plenty of foreshadowing that has natural progressions and payoffs in the later films.  Stuff like this makes me recognize the brilliance within the prequel trilogy, in spite of its faults.  This saying pretty much sums up the political aspect of not just this movie, but of the entire prequel trilogy (PT): “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”  While there is a celebration of peace and prosperity at the end of the film, knowing what lies ahead, it’s a bittersweet victory.  Enjoy the peace while you can.

“He [Anakin] gives without any thought of reward.”

“He knows nothing of greed.”

 

 

Rated: 2.5 / 5

This used to be what I considered to be the worst Star Wars film ever (not including spin-offs, or anything outside of the episodes that have Roman numerals in them).  That was until The Last Jedi came about.  And to this day, I have to admit, this movie is pretty bad.  I struggle at times on giving it a lower rating, but the last act prevents me from doing so.

I mean seriously, this is awesome shit!

First, the good stuff.  The imperfections of the Republic have carried over into the opening text crawl of this film.  Due to disagreements and civil division, many worlds have broken off from the Republic to join the Separatists.  This sounds a bit eerily close to reality doesn’t it?  If it doesn’t seem freakishly similar to events of today yet, wait until you get to the next episode.

But anyway, many are becoming worried about the state of affairs.  How the Separatists are being formed, and the threat they pose to the Republic.  But there is justification on the Separatists’ part.  As we’ve seen in the last episode, the Republic and the Senate isn’t efficient at dealing with issues, making many frustrated and fed up with the slow pace, with the stalling, etc.  Thus, despite reservations and warnings as to how this could backfire, the Jedi Council and other factions back the appointment of Palpatine as the leader of the Senate, who will act with semi-dictatorial rule to make more decisive decisions.  It allows for greater efficiency in addressing problems and sidesteps the usual issues that would bog down the amount of time it would normally take.  This is done out of fear of what the Separatists and their droid army will do.  And the whole conflict (and the formation of the Separatists) was planned by the very guy they appointed as leader of the Senate, and thus of the Republic.  And he used fear and exploited the weaknesses of mankind (and alienkind too, don’t want to alienate anyone) and government institutions to gain power and control.  Even the Jedi Council admit that they are taking a very dangerous path here, electing Palpatine to such a position, even if it’s for good intentions (the road to Hell).

Good stuff.  Too bad it’s marred by one of the worst fucking executions of a romance story I’ve ever seen in my life.  Fuck me, the acting by Hayden Christensen is fucking horrendous, to the point of hilarity at times.  It’s not helped by the dialogue, spoken by Padme and Anakin.  This isn’t an issue one can ignore considering how much time is spent with them.  But I have to admit, just this aspect alone makes this film perfect for Rifftrax.  And after re-watching this, I consider it a sin to watch the film without the Rifftrax treatment.

Oh, but the pain and misery don’t end there.  Aside from R2-D2 and C3-PO being more involved (gag me with a spoon), there’s also the action scenes during the first 3 quarters of the film.  Most of them go for far too long (like when they’re chasing the assassin), and they get dull by the time they’re halfway over.  I don’t care if there’s symbolism and foreshadowing in those scenes (Anakin getting his hand temporarily trapped on the conveyor belt foreshadowing his robotic arm), they needed serious trimming.

Then there’s Jengo Fette, who has a son named Boba Fette.  Why the fuck do we need a Boba Fette connection in the PT?  Stop making these forced and unnecessary connections to the OT!  They don’t enhance either trilogy in any way and just make things more stupider (so stupider I’m saying the word that way instead of it’s appropriate spelling/usage).

What a lot of fans were like when walking out of this movie.

And lastly, there’s Anakin.  First, it seems as if too much of everything revolves around him.  First there’s this prophecy bullshit (which, again, is something this trilogy could’ve done without).  Then there’s the moment when he kills all these Sand People in a rage after his mother dies, and this rage and pain is felt by Yoda (oh please).  And then there’s the meeting with those people who would go on to raise Luke Skywalker.

What the fuck!?!!!!!?

It serves no purpose!  There’s no rhyme or reason for it!  It’s bullshit!  And on top of that, Obi-Wan doesn’t know about it, so it doesn’t make anymore sense for Obi-Wan to somehow conveniently albeit unwisely hand Luke over to them at the end of Episode III.  It’s more bullshit “memba dis?” moments as a callback to the OT that shouldn’t exist in the first place.  Illogical, fucks with the OT a bit, questions the rationality on everyone’s part, and at the very least seems like a dumb fucking hiding place.  In fact, why the fuck even hide the babies in the first place if Anakin isn’t going to know what they look like?  I mean, shit, one of them is hiding in– whoah, hang on, I’m getting ahead of myself here.  Need to hold back and save this rant for Episode III when the event actually happens.  I’ll get back to you later you dumb fucking thing you.

Now, I don’t want to end the review of this film on a sour note, because at least the film had the decency of ending on a high note (at least in terms of entertainment value).  The film kicks up a notch when our protagonists are in the arena fighting for their lives.  Finally, an investing action sequence.  And then the Jedi army shows up, and they start fighting against an army of robots.  And despite how powerful the Jedi are, they’re not invincible, and they take heavy losses and are on the verge of getting wiped out.  But then the clone army shows up to save the day, and then we get to see a massive battle between the droid army and the clone army.  And it concludes with a fight between Anakin and Kenobi vs. Dooku, until Yoda steps in and showcases one of the most hilarious and awesome (at the same time) moment in Star Wars history.  All of a sudden, it felt like it was worth getting through all that bullshit condensed into the first 2/3rds of the movie just to get to that last 3rd.

I can’t not be entertained by this.

Oh, right, about the clone army.  It’s a great concept, though it’s marred by the whole Fette connection thing (would’ve been a lot better if this asshole had any other name, and didn’t have a kid named Boba; the only fucking bobas I want as far as the PT is concerned are the bobas that go into smoothies).

Damn right, it’s better than yours!

Anyway, I found it a bit intriguing as to how it got started.  Qui-Gon Jin (under the alias Sypho Dias) went to this planet to order their creation nearly a decade ago, under the orders of someone.  I presume it was under either Palpatine’s orders, or by someone who was connected to Palpatine.  I imagine there’s some extended universe (EU) book that goes more in-depth with this and offers more of an explanation.  Either way, I found it intriguing.  But it also shows how intelligent Palpatine is and how far-ahead he planned the whole conflict.

In addition, it showcases the strengths and weaknesses of the military in general when it comes to warfare.  In this and episode I, we see that the droids, while effective to an extent, don’t have great reasoning powers, and are easily defeated if the station containing the computers that control them is destroyed.  The clone army, on the other hand, they are more adaptable in combat, less robotic, and don’t all fall apart if one command center is destroyed.  However, they are not independent, and always follow orders from the person in charge no matter what they are.  A fault that will be showcased in the next film.  In any case, I can’t help but think this is a statement about the military and warfare in general.  How this trilogy acts as a warning against the future of warfare, and what the consequences will be if clones and/or machines are used in place of the regular human (or alien) fighter.  What is lost when humanity is taken out of the conflict, a conflict where the casualties are not just the soldiers?

Lucas wasn’t done with the homages yet.

Anyway, once again the film ends on a scene representing peace and prosperity, albeit on a smaller scale.  The union between Anakin and Padme.  And again, it’s bittersweet, more-so than in the last film.  Partly because Padme deep down knows that this relationship will end up destroying them.  Partly because of the conflict everyone knows lies ahead (and there’s another near-end shot with Palpatine overlooking the Republic’s progress towards a state he desires).  But mostly because this romance doesn’t live up to its potential because their acting and dialogue absolutely sucked!

The Jedi way.

 

 

 

Rated: 4 / 5

So Episode I had some flaws but was overall very entertaining.  Episode II was full of bullshit but at least ended on a good last act.  Episode III turned out to be the best of the PT, by a mile.

The opening text crawl begins almost declaratively, “War!  It’s everywhere!”  It also states that “There are heroes on both sides.”  Already with that opening statement it brings even more potential for spin-offs and fan-made-content to build on that.  Heroes on both sides?  Does that include Jedi?  Who are these heroes on the enemy side?  What was their motivation for joining?  From what I understand, much of this potential was utilized in the Clone Wars animated series (which I haven’t seen, though I’ve heard good things about it).  It’s subtle things like that which helped elevate this entertaining yet flawed trilogy into a cultural revolution when it came to Star Wars products which were absolutely devoured by fans about as much as those young little 80s cunt kids devoured those Ewok toys.

Let me get the negatives out of the way right here right now, because there are a lot of positives to be had with this entry into the saga.  First, fucking R2-D2 and C3-PO are still around jacking off (or if you’re female, fingering) the fans (and Lucas) who ate the Memba Berries.  Second, why the fuck is Chewbacca in this?  Third, the scene with Anakin and Kenobi on the ship after getting captured by Grevious’ forces (a grievous error; I can’t help it; if Lucas is going to create character with puns for names, I’m going to be making fucking puns; at least it wasn’t something stupid like Rose [Titanic was stupid too]), the way they got out of that predicament was stupid.  I mean, seriously, Grevious is experienced with taking out Jedi, and he didn’t anticipate this bullshit?

Fourth, when Anakin turns to the dark side, I find it to be a stretch, to the breaking point, to believe that Anakin is capable of slaughtering younglings.  It would’ve made more sense if he saw the clones doing the slaughtering, which would’ve provided better motivation near the end regarding the line, “Join me Padme, I can overthrow the Emperor, we can rule together!”  Granted that’s a callback to the same line he said as Vader to Luke in Empire Strikes Back, but it could’ve been handled better.  Because he is clearly someone who joined forces with the Emperor for reasons he personally considered out of necessity than out of want.  On top of that, it makes him out to be more of an irredeemable dick.

Fifth, Padme dies because she, and I quote, “Lost the will to live.”  Go fuck yourself, and your logic.  You’re telling me this broad didn’t want to try raising her own children?  That having love for her kids wasn’t reason enough to keep her going?  Kinda makes her a selfish cunt if you ask me.  Plus, with the way I interpreted the backstory in the OT, I thought that Luke and Leia’s mother would’ve still been alive for a respectable amount of time after she gave birth to the kids, but wanted to keep them away from Vader because she feared him, and he ended up killing her in a rage after finding out she had her kids hidden from him.  Hell, this movie even provides another reason on top of that; because she had different beliefs and viewpoints regarding politics and the Republic and the Emperor compared to what Anakin believed.

[EDIT 6-30-2018: Ok, so maybe the film is more intelligent about the whole Padme death thing than I thought.  There is an article which makes the argument that there is more going on in this sequence than what we see at face value.  The fact that robots are disconnected from the force (because they’re not living things), and are unable to detect the force, and are thus unable to detect that an element of the force is draining the life away from Padme.  Because Anakin still has a connection to her, a connection that Sidious is aware of.  And the connection is used to sustain Anakin’s life until his transformation into Vader is complete.  Plus, when paying very close attention to the sequence, not just the transitions between Anakin and Padme in pain, but also the sounds.  Anakin’s heartbeat, how it continues, then goes silent for a few moments as the Vader mask is put onto him, then you hear Vader breathe, but no heartbeat.  Anakin is dead, Vader is born, providing another element of truth to when Kenobi told Luke Vader murdered Anakin.  I have to admit, when taking that into account, it makes me have further appreciation for this film.  So issue #5 isn’t that big of an issue.  By the way, I highly recommend checking the article out for more details on this sequence.  It’s got some fascinating thought-provoking stuff in it.]

Sixth, you dumb fucking thing you!  Why the fuck would they hide Luke on Tatooine?  The very planet that Anakin grew up on!?!?!?

Seventh, and last.  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!  Bhahahahahah!  That moment ruined the whole grim and depressing nature of the last act in a moment of “so-bad-it’s-good.”  Look, I’m all for so-bad-it’s-good moments, but not in a film that was on the verge of being a (non-comedy) masterpiece.  Though I do have to admit this moment entertained the hell out of me, for the wrong reason.  And for better or worse, it’s one of the most iconic moments of the movie.  Oh, and one other thing.  Anyone want to explain to me how it is Vader’s suit got ready so fast?  Or did more time pass than the film is letting on?

“I think this war is destroying the principles of the Republic.”

Well anyway, onto the positives.  This film contains some of the best action sequences in the entire Star Wars franchise.  The scenes when the clones and droids are fighting, the lightsaber duels, the space fight, the fight on the ship in the beginning.  If nothing else, it’s an action-junkie’s wet dream.  Plus Hayden’s acting abilities have improved since the last film.  And that’s just the surface level entertainment.

“What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we’ve been fighting to destroy?”

Back to the politics.  So Palpatine is in power, and he claims he’ll relinquish it and put the Senate back the way it was prior to the Clone Wars.  However, the Jedi Council fear that he intends to keep this power once the war is over.  Yet they also know that if they make a move against Palpatine and put themselves in the position of power to try and restore the Senate to where it was, this would be a very dark path for them to take.  A path that goes against the teachings and philosophies of the Jedi.  Not to mention the Jedi are heavily involved in the war, not exactly acting as keepers of the peace.  But it’s a moral grey area.  On the one hand, if they don’t get involved, then the Separatists and the droid army would win, and that would spell doom for the Republic and put the galaxy in a state of total chaos.  Plus they are right about Palpatine.  If they don’t act, he will likely find a way to remain in power and change the Republic from a Democracy to a Dictatorship.  A complicated issue the Jedi Council aren’t entirely sure how to deal with, creating a sense of fear and dread, and thus act against the Jedi way.  Similar to how the Senate decides to act against the way of Democracy and out of a sense of fear support the rise of a dictator who claims will protect them.  The Jedi Council begins to break down just like the Senate.  Even one of their own, Count Dooku, leaves the Jedi Order (Episode II) to join the Separatists, and becomes seduced by Sidious for reasons we don’t know.  And it’s better left up in the air, because each Jedi has their own personal beliefs, their own personal motivations, their own selfish interests that the dark side can exploit to seduce them to their side and their cause.  The main one we see seduced in Anakin, for reasons that involve fear of losing a loved one, and being blinded by love.

sw-rots-epic
And eventually turning his back on love.

The whole film (and to a greater extent, the trilogy) acts as a deconstruction of politics and religion, showcasing the dangers to how each can fall.  And they both fall for similar reasons, because religion and politics, despite how much some countries promote the policy of separation between church and state, are bound to be interlinked.  After all, if a government is for the people, and politicians are people, and if there are people who follow a religion, then the relationship is inescapable.  Both fall to a dark religion that promotes rule by strength, control over all others, a lust for power and greed, and ultimately sows the seeds of division.  Because if there can only be one ruler, only one god, then there cannot be a Democracy where the way of life is to work together, to talk things out, and vote for the best interest of as many as possible.  Thus Democracies and peaceful religions must fall, seeds of fear and distrust must be sowed so that such division can be reaped later on.  It is how evil can rise.

“All who gain power are afraid to lose it.  Even the Jedi.”

“The Jedi use their power for good.”

“Good is a point of view, Anakin.”

But what is good and what is evil?  As Palpatine points out, good is a point of view.  This is later expressed with Anakin saying to Kenobi, “From my point of view the Jedi are evil.”  Even in Return of the Jedi, Kenobi expresses this same message, that many of the truths we cling to depend on our point of view.  In Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker asks Yoda how he can tell the good from the bad, to which Yoda replies, “You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive.”  The problem is that virtually no one in this film is calm, at peace, or passive.  Virtually everyone is acting the opposite.  Including the Jedi Council, who failed to foresee many of the tragedies that would occur.  Yoda admits that they have become blind in Episode II, something that causes them to worry, hence not being at peace.  They abandon passivity for war.  And Anakin abandons calmness for passion.  In fact, we see more of this hypocritical nature of the Jedi with Kanobi’s line, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes,” making an absolute statement, which isn’t something I would consider passive.

On the other hand, is there not a time where someone must no longer be passive?  Is there not a time where doing nothing is the wrong thing?  These philosophies are best served as generalities, there are exceptions.  They state the Sith rely on their passions, are selfish, and only look inwards towards themselves, caring naught for others other than using them as a means to an end.  But the Jedi rely not on passions, are selfless, and act to help others, caring for others (at least in theory and according to teachings).  Being calm and at peace with oneself makes it easier to know when to act and when not to.  Passions should be utilized, but not relied upon, since your feelings can betray you.  One should be passive until a time comes to act.  Knowing when and how to act comes with knowledge and wisdom, which I’m sure is also something the Jedi teach, as Yoda and Kenobi taught Luke in the OT.  And as they said, following the path of the light is difficult, while following the path of the dark is easy.  So of course there would be complications if trying to live life following the light side.

But because the dark side is so seductive, so tempting, many do fall to it.  Many do give in to selfish acts.  And politics and religion are a heavy factor for it.  The war broke out because of a breakdown in politics and religion.  Separatists were made causing worlds who were once allied with one another to fight against one another, turning friend against friend, loved one against loved one.  Because they are convinced their way is right, their way is just, not considering the other perspective.  Becoming unwilling to talk things out.  Because it is much easier to do otherwise.

The destruction of democracy.  And when democracy can be used as a weapon against its own.

 

“So this is how liberty dies.  With thunderous applause.”

Thus it is easy for governments and religious groups to slowly erode until they fall.  The temptations, the easy way, the passions and selfish acts.  Too tempting for many to resist.  And over the course of this trilogy, we see how they all erode away in one form or another.  Eventually, sense of goodness and fairness and selflessness is eroded to the point where many applaud the act of doing away with the very thing they once held dear, sometimes for the illusion of “a safe and secure society.”  While the PQ is about the fall of the Republic and the Jedi due to this corruption, the OT is about overthrowing the corrupted and bringing hope for a new era, a time for a new government and a new religion (or a resurrected one).  How even when the light seems extinguished, there is always a way to re-ignite it and bring back order.  It doesn’t happen easily, it takes time, it takes effort, it takes sacrifice, but it can be done.  How unfortunate it is then that the more recent trilogy doesn’t continue this cycle by showing the other aspect, which one wouldn’t be wrong in assuming should be the rise of a new Republic, a new democracy, and how to maintain it and prevent it from slipping down the same path as the Republic and Jedi Council did in the PT.  And finding a way to balance telling such a story on a personal level (a protagonist caught in the middle of a conflict brought on by political forces) and on an impersonal level (while the politicians and religious leaders make their own moves and developments that affect the protagonists, and even antagonists).  From what I understand, Lucas had a similar vision for episodes VII-IX if he ever got around to making them.  But he didn’t, because he felt it was time to move on, to let others tell their own story, to bring what they could for this franchise, this saga.

When both sides cause destruction.

And what did they bring?  What did they expand?  Something I’ll address in a later review when I revisit those films.

Brother against brother.

Until then, my conclusions on this film and the PT.  It’s a flawed trilogy, but not without its moments of greatness.  Potential lost and unfulfilled, matched by potential achieved.  Imperfect yet wildly entertaining.  Ambitious with the new material unleashed, yet flounders when providing fan-service by forcing in the familiar.  I enjoy the trilogy in spite of its flaws (and make due with the severe flaws of Episode II by giving it the Rifftrax treatment), and revel in the glamorous moments that succeed.  The battles of the last act between Yoda and Sidious, between Anakin and Kenobi, the music that accompanies these sequences.  Even if most of the content is disregarded as garbage, this moments stand the test of time as masterpiece sequences.  Plus one can’t ignore the emotional impact some of these scenes have, particularly the fall of the Jedi when order 66 is executed.

 

If nothing else, one can’t ignore the soundtrack provided by John Williams, who some say single-handedly saved this trilogy from being a total disaster.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would’ve been a disaster without his music, but I will say that it rivals that of the OT, which is an incredible accomplishment in of itself.  Too much greatness to label the films as complete garbage, too many flaws to label them as masterpieces.  A flawed gem is what I would call them.

Welcome to Hell.

So I would say this is a trilogy worth revisiting.  If it’s been many years since you’ve seen it, you may find some things in it that make it better than you remember.  In some ways it’s more intelligent than it seems, yet remains as dumb as you’ve heard/remembered in others.  Either way, there’s some fun to be had, and some thought-provoking moments.

Symbolism of living cells and midi-chlorians, indicating a struggle within the soul between the forces of light and dark?

 

PS: Well that seemed to end on a bit of a serious note.  Let’s close this by lightening things up a bit.

“Spygate” Living Blog Post

Note made after writing everything below the Introduction:

Fuck me sideways to Atlantis, this is overwhelmingly ridiculous.  I started out typing this post just wanting my own personal page to continually update with information regarding Trump/Russia/Spygate/etc.  Mainly the names of people and organizations, so I can keep track of who to definitely not trust, who to remember when elections happen and when stories break, etc.  I expected to have a finished copy after a couple days, and then update it off and on when a relevant story breaks.

And I can’t do it.  At least not like that.  There are so many goddamn news articles with so many goddamn names and goddamn organizations, it would take a group of people to try and organize everything in the amount of time I’m trying to do it.  And for someone like me who has a bit of attention deficit disorder, that’s asking for too much.  So I’m going to change tactics.  I’m just going to post what I’ve written as is, which is basically a jumbled mess of stuff.  And I’ll just update it off and on when new stories come out from here on.  I’m sick of digging into older posts from various websites of the past, and I’d rather be doing something else, like continuing to play Knights of the Old Republic 1 (yep, got sidetracked from Witcher 3 again, and from Mass Effect 2; I’m not very good at sticking to just one thing for very long), continuing to analyze the censorship done with a certain Vietnam War documentary (not the Ken Burns one per-se), and continue to binge-watch the original Star Trek series while I have access to Netflix for the brief time I’m able to do so (don’t see many other opportunities to finally check that off my bucket list).  Plus I hate having to wait so long before making a blog post, and I’d hate to see the effort I put into this go to waste.

So here it is, unfinished, unpolished, plenty of information left out, not that well organized, and will be initially be posted this way because I’m sick of working on it.  I’ll update it every now and then, hopefully; but don’t hold your breath.  I’m doing this one more for me than for anything else.

 

Introduction

So there is a lot of controversy surrounding Donald J. Trump, whether it’s the man himself, the people he associates with, the people associated with him, or his enemies, the DNC (Democratic National Committee), the RNC (Republic National Committee), the CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the Russians, the British, George Soros, the MSN (mainstream media), just to name a few.  You could take your pick as to which controversial topic to latch on to whether you’re for or against him.  Personally, I’m for him (let my bias be known now), but I’m also aware of several of his faults, including his stance against Net Neutrality, and how he may wind up supporting corporations to a fault (but I’ve learned many can be against corporations to a fault as well, so it’s a bit of a balancing act, when it shouldn’t be).  But when many seem to be setting him up for something bad that as far as I can tell he didn’t do, that irritates me, frustrates me, and at times scares me.  I’d rather bash a man in power for legit grievances than for made up stories.  More importantly, I don’t think he should be on the priority list for people to go after who are ruining the country, much less threatening my way of life (a way I would like to see improved I might add).

So I’m going to be making this post about all the news articles I can find regarding Trump, his potential collusion with the Russians, and those who are framing that story and who the actual perpetrators are more likely to be, plus updates on the story of one or more spies within the Trump campaign which were planted prior to him being sworn into office as president.  This will be continually updated, assuming I can maintain the willpower to do so.  In essence, this will be my first full-on post that is 100% political.  It was bound to happen.

 

Timeline of Events

* April 2014: Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is relieved of duty as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

* June 16, 2015: Trump announces his run for president, seeking the Republican nomination.

** December 2015: Strzok-Page Texts (which would become declassified and made public in June 2018) are made indicating that the FBI were using sources (ie “lures”) to lure unnamed U.S. citizens (likely those in the Trump administration) to the UK, indicating that the FBI wanted to run a baited Sting Op using foreign agents against Trump.  (Source)

* February 28 2016: Jeff Sessions formally joined the Trump campaign. (Source)

* March 3, 2016: Trump names Sessions as chairman of his campaign’s national security advisory committee. (Source)

* April 13, 2016: “President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike, to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.”Source

** May 5, 2016: The FBI had Crowdstrike monitor the DNC servers (Source), in response to news that the DNC servers had been hacked prior to the 2016 presidential election; they were reportedly payed $168,000 by the DNC (Source).

** June 15, 2016: CrowdStrike claims that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC servers (claimed to be done by Guccifer 2.0), and John Podesta’s e-mails.  (Source)

* July 2016: Jeff Sessions spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. (Source)

* July 19, 2016: Trump is formally nominated for Republican party’s choice as president of the United States.  “Trump earned the 1,237 bound delegates necessary to secure the party’s nomination in early June. The chairs of each state delegation expressed their vote totals and support for Trump in a roll call vote during the second day of the Republican National Convention. Despite having won the primary outright, many of the party’s leading figures have refused to endorse Trump. All four of the GOP’s most recent presidents and presidential nominees are absent from the convention, as are scores of the party’s senators (Source).”

* July 22, 2016: On the Friday before the Democratic National Convention begins, WikiLeaks releases emails that are thought to have been stolen from the Democratic National Committee by Russian state actors. (Source)

** Aug. 21, 2015: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) makes an unexpected appearance at a Donald Trump campaign rally in Mobile, Ala. While he doesn’t endorse Trump, he dons a “Make America Great Again” cap to loud applause. Sessions is one of the first elected officials to tacitly embrace Trump’s upstart candidacy. (Source)

* September 8, 2016: Jeff Sessions met with Sergey Kislyak, in Session’s office.  Sessions stated the meeting was in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate.  He stated the meeting was regarding, “a trip he made to Russia in 1991, terrorism and Ukraine — a major policy issue, given Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the imposition of U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia for its actions.” (Source)  Also worth noting:

Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

(Source)

* October 7, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing emails that the U.S. government thinks were stolen by Russia from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. (Source)

* November 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.

* Nov. 17, 2016: President-elect Trump names Flynn his intended national security adviser. The position does not require Senate approval. (Source)

* November 18, 2016: Trump nominates Jeff Sessions as attorney general.

* January 5-6, 2017: [CNN released this story on January 10, 2017] Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump. The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Source  [James Clapper supposedly discussed the story with CNN prior to its airing (Source)]

** January 6, 2017: “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” is made publicly available. Source

** January 10, 2017: Buzzfeed.com publicly published a dossier alleging that Russia has compromising information on Trump (Source).  This is now known as either the Russian Dossier, or the Steele Dossier (the individual who compiled the dossier was at the time known to be a former British intelligence official, and his actual name would be revealed later on as Christopher Steele), a Dossier which is said to show that the Russians have “dirt” on Trump doing sexual misdeeds, and are thus able to blackmail him into doing stuff for them.

* January 10 2017: Jeff Sessions confirmation hearing, where he is questioned regarding any potential contacts he had in the past with the Russians. (Source)

* January 20, 2017: Trump is inaugurated as president.

** January 25, 2017: Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign begins.

** February 8, 2017: Sessions is confirmed as attorney general in a 52-47 vote. Franken and Leahy — and every other Democrat save Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) — vote no. (Source)

** February 13, 2017: General Flynn was fired (forced out) as NatSec Advisor. (Source)

* March 2, 2017: Jeff Sessions publicly stated that he will recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential election campaign, which includes the supposed Russian interference. (Source)

** May 17, 1017: Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein of the Justice Department appointed Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I. director, as special counsel to oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials (Source).

** April 25, 2018: The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch are teaming up to sue the Department of State for documents related to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the unverified anti-Trump dossier. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, seeks the fulfillment of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by both TheDCNF and Judicial Watch. Source

** April 26, 2017: “an unsealed FISA Court Ruling unveiled a number of criminal activities that Barack Obama’s FBI, NSA and DOJ participated in during his time in office. […] the FISA Court Ruling shows widespread abuse of the FISA mandate. According to the report, Obama’s FBI, NSA and DOJ performed searches on Americans that were against their 4th Amendment rights. This went on for years. One paragraph in the report states that 85% of the Section 704 and 705(b) FISA searches made during the time of the audit (a few months in 2015) were non-compliant with applicable laws and therefore criminal.  In addition, Obama’s DOJ and FBI were illegally searching Americans against their rights.  Unbeknownst to most Americans, Obama’s FBI was providing this information to outside contractors who had no business or legal cause or claim the information. A further review of the report by Jeff Carlson shows on page 19 that the Court stated that James Clapper’s NSA had an institutional “lack of candor”.”Source

** October 24, 2017:

** April 26, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyCaller reports: Former FBI Director James Comey repeated one of the more pervasive false claims about the infamous Steele dossier on Thursday, telling Fox News’ Bret Baier Republicans first financed the salacious document. Instead, the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funded the dossier project. “I knew it was first funded by Republicans,” Comey told Baier during an exchange about his knowledge of the dossier, which former British spy Christopher Steele wrote. “That’s not true, that the dossier that Christopher Steele worked on was funded by Republicans?” Baier replied.  “My understanding is his work started funded as oppo research funded by Republicans,” Comey insisted. Baier corrected Comey, saying The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, claimed they hired Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm commissioned the dossier, on a retainer, “but they did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier.” “That was initiated by Democrats,” Baier said. “My understanding was the activity was begun, that Steele was hired to look into was first funded by Republicans then picked up — important thing was picked up by Democrats opposed to Donald Trump,” Baier added. Comey’s false claim is not without precedent, though it is surprising given the FBI relied on the dossier as part of its investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian government. Fusion GPS hired Steele to investigate Trump in June 2016. The opposition research firm was working at that time for Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign and DNC. The Washington Free Beacon, which billionaire Republican donor Paul Singer funds, hired Fusion GPS in September 2015 to conduct standard opposition research on Trump. But the website ended its Trump work in May 2016, after Trump appeared poised to win the GOP nomination. The Free Beacon employed Fusion through January 2017 but cut ties after BuzzFeed News published the Steele report. Comey signed off on three surveillance warrants obtained against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, which relied heavily on the dossier.  Source

** April 27, 2018: “The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Friday released a heavily-redacted 253-page report laying out the findings of its 14-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.  The report, which was authored by committee Republicans and approved for release on a party-line vote, asserts that the investigation “found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”Source

** May 31, 2018: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in an interview with Vox relating to his memoir Facts and Fears: Hard Truths from a Life in Intelligence, states that he believes the Russians did interfere with the election, but expresses doubts as to whether Trump colluded with them or not, or whether their interference affected the outcome of the election. (Source)

** June 3, 2018: Republican California Representative Devin Nunes reports that Aussie Ambassador Alexander Downer lied about the launch of the Spygate scandal, lied about giving George Papadopoulos information to the Australian Ambassador in the US to launch the spying on the Trump campaign. Source

 

Noteworthy Individuals/Corporations/Organizations

** Alexander Downer: former Australian ambassador, high commissioner in London.

* Alphabet: “an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Mountain View, California. It was created through a corporate restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015 and became the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. The two founders of Google assumed executive roles in the new company, with Larry Page serving as CEO and Sergey Brin as President. Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include Google, Calico, Chronicle, GV, CapitalG, Verily, Waymo, X, and Google Fiber.” Source

* Andrew McCabe: FBI Deputy Director; worked on the Clinton e-mail investigation.  “His wife, Jill, lost an election for Virginia state senator after receiving $500,000 from long-time Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe and another $200,000 from the state Democratic Party – incredible donations for a state senate race. [Source]

* Atlantic Council: “an American think tank in the field of international affairs. Founded in 1961, it provides a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. It manages ten regional centers and functional programs related to international security and global economic prosperity. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.” Source.  The Atlantic Council is known to be very “hawkish” on Russia (Source).  It’s also funded in-part by NATO, United Arab Emirates, and Open Society Initiative for Europe (the latter of which is a program of the Open Society Foundation,  (Source).

* Barack Obama:

** Chuck Schumer: Democrat Senate Minority Leader New York.

* Christopher Steele: former British intelligence official.  Authored the infamous Russian/Steele Dossier used as evidence showing that Russia has “dirt” on Trump and is thus able to influence him.

* Crowdstrike: Cybersecurity company, who’s co-founder and CTO is Dmitri Alperovitch (also nonresident senior fellow on the Atlantic Council). that received $100 million from Google Capital (aka CapitalG) in 2015 (Source).  The company is owned by Alphabet (who’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election).  Steven Chabinsky is the general counsel and chief risk officer for Crowdstrike.

* Dmitri Alperovitch: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative of the Atlantic Council.

* Donald J. Trump: Nominated for president of the United States July 19, 2016.  Won presidential election November 8, 2016.  Sworn into office January 10, 2017.

* Eric Schmidt: Chairman of Alphabet, which owns CapitalG (aka Google Capital).

** Fusion GPS: a Washington firm.

** George Soros:  “a Hungarian-American investor, business magnate, philanthropist, political activist and author. Soros is one of the world’s most successful investors.  He is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes and dispenses his donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations. Between 1979 and 2011, Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes; by 2017, his donations “on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world” totaled $12 billion. He influenced the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and provided one of Europe’s largest higher education endowments to the Central European University in his Hungarian hometown.” Source

* George Papadopoulos:

* Harry Reid: former Senate Democrat leader

* Hillary Clinton:

* James Clapper: served as the director of national intelligence from 2010 to January 20, 2017, and before that worked as a career intelligence officer under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

* James Comey: Director of the FBI from September 4, 2013, until May 9, 2017 when he was fired by Trump.  Initially nominated to the position by Barack Obama on March 3, 2013, to replace outgoing FBI director Robert Mueller.  Was against wiretapping utilized by the Bush administration in 2004 (Source).

* Jeff Sessions:

* John Brennan: CIA Director from

* John Podesta:

* Joeseph Mifsud:

* Kellyanne Conway: senior Trump advisor

** Lisa Page: FBI agent involved with the sending of 10,000 anti-Trump text messages between herself and Peter Stzrok (who she was involved with an extramarital affair).

** Loretta Lynch:

** Michael Cohen:

* Michael Flynn:

* Mike Pence:

** Michael S. Rogers: former US navy admiral, now director of the NSA.

** Nellie Ohr: formerly worked for the CIA (Source) and is the wife of senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr (who would be demoted for not reporting his meeting with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS [Source]).  Hired by Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump (Source).

** Open Society Foundation: aka Open Society Institute.  Founded by George Soros.   “The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.  We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check.  We help to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights.  We implement initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media.  We build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information.  Working in every part of the world, the Open Society Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.”Source

** Open Society Initiative for Europe:

** Peter Stzrok: FBI agent, who was on the Mueller team until found to be involved with the sending of 10,000 anti-Trump text messages between himself and Lisa Page (who he was involved with an extramarital affair).  He was also involved with the investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal in 2016.  “Stzrok not only allowed Hillary’s aides to be present during her questioning, but he also failed to put the former secretary of state under oath. Such sloppiness was irrational – unless Stzrok knew Hillary’s answers were immaterial because the investigation’s outcome was pre-determined. [Source]”  (Source 2)

* Robert Swan Mueller III: nominated as director of the FBI by then-president George W. Bush on July 5, 2001, and officially took the position on September 4, 2001, and remained director of FBI until September 4, 2013 (replaced by James Comey).  “He had been working at WilmerHale [prior to being appointed on the special council team investigating Trump], which represents former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner — people who might be witnesses, or more, in the course of Mueller’s high-profile investigation [Source].”

* Rod J. Rosenstein: Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department.  Appointed Mueller as special counselor into the Trump-Russia-Collusion investigation in May 2017.

* Roger Stone:

* Sergey Kislyak: Russian Ambassador.

** Seth Rich: murdered in Washington DC July 2016.  Officially considered a mugging despite valuables left on him, some suggest he was murdered because he was the Wikileaks source for the DNC e-mail leaks (Source).

** Steven Chabinsky: the general counsel and chief risk officer for CrowdStrike; appointed to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity by Obama in April 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

News Stuff that I don’t have organized yet

June 25, 2017: Justin Caruso of TheDailyWire reports:

The analysis that alleged that Russia was behind the DNC server breach was carried out not by the U.S. government, but by the private security group CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike is the sole source of this claim, with their June 2016 report, “Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee” being the basis of the DNC’s Russian hacking allegations.

Here are five key points about CrowdStrike that the mainstream media is ignoring:

1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC

2. The FBI Never Looked At The DNC’s Servers — Only CrowdStrike Did

3. Comey Contradicted The DNC’s Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server

4. CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire

5. CrowdStrike Is Funded By Clinton-Loving Google $$

Source

 

 

May 19, 2017: Gregg Jarrett of Fox News reports: “[Mueller] and James Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand for years at the FBI. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.” Source

 

 

December 13, 2017: Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge reports: Over 10,000 text messages sent between two top FBI investigators – one of whom led both the Clinton email investigation and the early Trump-Russia probe, have been turned over to Congress Tuesday evening and promptly leaked to the press. The profanity-laced messages reveal a deep hatred for Trump between veteran agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page, who were having an extramarital affair while working together on the Clinton email investigation when the texts were exchanged. Strzok and Page were fired from Robert Mueller’s special counsel in mid-August over the messages, yet the reason was not revealed until last month. Strzok notably changed the wording of then-FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Clinton’s mishandling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.”Source

 

 

April 16, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyWire reports: Comey told interviewer George Stephanopoulos that the FBI was unaware of the salacious and unverified dossier until after the bureau formally opened its counterintelligence investigation of President Donald Trump’s campaign. The investigation was opened on July 31, 2016. Comey is contradicted by extensive reporting that dossier author Christopher Steele provided the FBI with information from his dossier on July 5, 2016. There has also been reporting that the information was almost immediately passed to the FBI’s counterintelligence division, which would later oversee the Trump probe.  Source

 

April 22, 2018: Joe Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports: “It is looking more and more like Obama’s Former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan and Former NSA Director James Clapper may have lied when they put together a report released in January 2017 about Russian influence in the 2016 election. This report was used to push the entire Russia narrative. […]  The DNC has not allowed investigators to review its IT systems and servers to determine how its emails landed in the hands of Wikileaks. To date the Mueller team has not reportedly even asked for this information. An inspection would provide evidence as to whether its servers were hacked by outsiders or if the emails were simply copied by an insider and provided to external parties.  […]  the Russia Report was based on judgements from the CIA led by John Brennan, the DNI led by James Clapper, and the FBI led by James Comey.”Source

 

March 26, 2018: Chuck Ross of TheDailyCaller reports: Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered — and he would accept — during the presidential campaign. The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6. Source

 

May 14, 2018: John Solomon of The Hill reports: In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI, the bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.  Yes, that’s the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller’s current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump administration.Source

 

May 31, 2018, Jim Hoft of TheGatewayPundit posted an article regarding Jeff Session’s incompetence, and indicating how it provides for logical reasoning to determine that Jeff Sessions is involved with the Deep State, and wants to bring Trump down (despite some beliefs by others that Jeff Sessions is on Trump’s side and just playing a waiting game for when to go after the real enemies; the counter-argument to that is that he’s taking too long to act).  Source

 

May 31, 2018: Hannity on Fox news interviews John Solomon of The Hill, stating Documents Reveal Obama White House Attempted to Take Over Spygate Investigation (Source)

 

 

June 1, 2018, Cassandra Fairbanks of TheGatewayPundit posted an article stating she interviewed 3 former intelligence officers (who are anonymous as of the date of the posting), who she claims stated:

* The U.K.’s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive “intelligence” allegedly linking Trump to Russia.

* The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake evidence linking Trump to Russia.

* George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.

* It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

* Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.

* The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.

The former intelligence officers agreed that the U.K.’s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive “intelligence” allegedly linking Trump to Russia.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to the two former intelligence officers on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. We additionally spoke to Bill Binney, a former high level National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower, who confirmed that he agrees with their conclusions.

What Ray McGovern and I were thinking is that the whole conspiracy about the Russian narrative was concocted by Brennan and then most likely approved by Obama. This is what I told Pompeo when I was in with him. It requires the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI, DNC and the DOJ to be coordinating — especially for things like the Steele dossier. The only one place they all come together and can be ordered to coordinate and cooperate is the president — which was Obama. The DOJ doesn’t fall under the DNI or anybody else — only the president,” Binney told The Gateway Pundit.

Source

 

June 1, 2018, John Solomon of The Hill reports, “new documents reveal the Obama deep state figures contacted Trump campaign officials in Great Britain prior to the launch of any FBI investigation. This spying on Trump campaign officials show the Comey FBI broke their own rules governing informants.” Source

 

June 1, 2018, Jim Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports, “Former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions oversaw the small team of five foreign policy experts for the Trump campaign.  Included in this small group were Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.  According to the House Intel report, the future President was under pressure to put together a foreign policy team in March of 2016.  A number of seasoned Republican foreign policy experts were unwilling to jump on the Trump train.  Because of this pressure from the press to show he had experts on his team, candidate Trump named then Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as the chairman of his National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC).  A few weeks later, candidate Trump released the names of five people on his team.  The list included Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.Source

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/27/donors-50-million-steele-fusion-gps/

 

June 3, 2018: Joe Hoft of TheGatewayPundit reports, “[…] former FBI Director James Comey stated that the investigation started in July of 2016, but evidence found in the public domain proves that the investigation started much earlier.” — Source

 

June 21, 2018: Cristina Laila of TheGatewayPundit reports:  Fitton said Saturday evening Judicial Watch received the requested documents and even though they are heavily redacted, they confirm the FBI and DOJ misled the courts.  Obama’s Deep State DOJ and FBI withheld information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC being behind the information used to obtain the FISA warrant.

Tom Fitton: .@JudicialWatch now has Carter Page FISA docs. They are heavily redacted but seem to confirm the FBI and DoJ misled the courts in withholding info about Clinton-DNC being behind the info used to get the FISA warrant.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-newly-released-docs-related-to-fisa-warrants-on-carter-page-confirm-obama-fbi-doj-misled-courts/

The Las Vegas Gun Violence (10-2-2017)

I know what’s going to happen. Regardless of the shooter’s affiliation, whether he’s just some crazy old man who decided to go insane at this moment in his life, or if some organization convinced him to do this (be it religious or political), the same thing is going to happen that always happens in situations like this, regardless of how high or low the body count is (though from what I’ve gathered this is the highest body count yet from a shooting massacre). Most mainstream media outlets are going to call for gun control and a ban on guns. So that this won’t ever happen again. Late night talk shows are going to preach this message, most news organizations are going to preach this message, and trolls on any website that has a comments section will be blaring as loudly as they possibly can that guns should be removed from everyone. They never let a crisis go to waste. Hillary Clinton sure doesn’t.

Some sources say the shooter did all this because the crazy old man converted to Islam and joined ISIS a few months prior to this incident, but this could happen whether or not that is the case. For all we know, it could just be some old guy who despises country music and anyone who listens to it. Besides, information like this can’t be trusted or relied upon during the first 24-48 hours after an incident like this. Too much misinformation flies around.

My position on this matter is to disagree with those statements entirely. Banning weapons is not the answer, otherwise places like Chicago would be a better place to live. However, when a gunman is able to store a bunch of rifles in his hotel room including a machine gun in a state that has lax gun laws to the point that you don’t need a permit or license to purchase any (at least when it comes to non-private sales), that tends to raise a few eyebrows at the very least. While I don’t believe guns should be banned, I do believe that only responsible people should be able to purchase them, which is why I do believe that permits should be mandatory. It just saddens me that some people can be so violent and crazy and untrustworthy that it makes this necessary.

On the other hand, even those with permits could still pull something like this off. Even those with insane evil intentions can act proper, mature, and of sound mind when it comes to acquiring weapons before they decide to use them.

It all reminds me of a post I made (long before I established this website) regarding a shooting incident in December 2012, in regards to a school shooting:

God o’mighty, another big news story that will last for weeks, only to get gradually more and more politically and media biased in some form or another, until you get sick of hearing about it. Personally, I’m already sick of it on day 2. The media won’t handle this any differently than the death of a single celebrity, except that there’s more tragedy in it (a bunch of children killed).

Don’t get me wrong, this event is sad as hell, but I hate the discussions that spawn from stuff like this. There’s always some uptight radical asshole (religious or otherwise) who will say something on the event that will piss people off for the wrong reasons. There’s always some news channel that will spin it in a despicable way. There will always be a dipshit politician who will try to make his/her own political gain/agenda from the event. There will always be some guy/gal who will say the law should change in some way that involves removing someone’s right and/or giving more power to the higher-ups (or in some rare cases taking it away). And last of all, all of the above (and more) will have me pissed off enough to post a rant about it.

Let’s face it, stuff like this has been going on a lot longer than some of us would believe. 1902. Year 1902 A.D, October 10. That’s when the first school shooting ever took place, in Altona, Manitoba, in an event known as The Altona Schoolhouse Shooting. It happened then, it happened a few years ago, it happened recently, and I have no doubt it will happen again. If guns didn’t exist, people would be using knives instead, because there is always some person out there who becomes fucked up enough to do shit like that.

Basically what I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter what law is passed, what actions are taken, or what year it is, tragedies like this are inevitably going to take place at some point in time. Only thing we can do his get over it and move on. If an agreeable way can be found to make such an event have a less likely chance of happening in the foreseeable future, that would be a bonus. No point in trying to make other people’s lives miserable by moping over it for too long, or by imposing your own set of laws/standards that hurt more people than it helps. Just let everyone be. If another f’d up person shows up wanting to start a killing spree, hope that there is another person (or multiple people) on the scene with the freedom (that no one should take away) to stop that person ASAP. You don’t have to be a security guard to do so, you just need to realize you can do so yourself, and have the balls to do it (ladies, we all know you can also grow a pair too; don’t think your excluded).

My feelings haven’t changed much in that regard since. If someone really wanted to kill a lot of people, there are alternative means to guns. If guns were banned, assuming they couldn’t get a hold of guns on the black market, they would use explosives instead. Every bit as illegal once cobbled together, but more difficult to track.

And there’s another thing to consider. This is one major incident that doesn’t happen very often. If guns were banned in order to stop a major incident like this from happening, what would the consequences of that be? Thankfully there are examples to make my point. In 1996, Australia implemented a gun ban, with the intent to cause violence to plummet. Well, gun violence did plummet (although didn’t altogether disappear, still making up for 20% of all homicides even after the ban), but other types of violence rose, such as sexual assault, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, and unarmed robbery (Source). The same thing thing happened in the UK with the same results (Source). And other studies, including by John R. Lott, have shown consistently that crime rises when guns are banned or made difficult to get a hold of (Source).

The bottom line, even if guns are banned, even if we disregard the purpose of the second amendment and why every citizen of sound mind should be able to have access to a gun, even if that does prevent major incidents of massacres such as the one that happened recently in Las Vegas, this would inevitably lead to an overall increase in crime that would defeat the purpose of banning guns in the first place. Sure, that would most likely prevent a massacre that would kill 5-80 people within the course of an hour or less; but this would be offset by having just as many people killed, if not more-so, overall, only more spread out over a series of days/months/years.

And people ask for the government to help them out. Has the government ever been that efficient at helping out citizens? Can you honestly say that with a straight face without lying through your teeth? I say that there is a reason why they say freedom isn’t free. It’s because the free have to work everyday to maintain their freedom. That includes being capable of defending your freedoms and defending yourselves. Because we will always be susceptible to dangers like this. Live with it, because it could be worse than it is now.

Besides, a lot of them speak as if banning guns will enhance our security and our safety, as if its possible for someone to live life without any danger, with a full sense of security, without needing to worry about anything. Bullshit! Danger will always be in our lives, in one form or another; ok that’s a lie, it will be in multiple forms. The point is, you have to live with danger. Besides, saying there can be safety without danger is like saying there can be light without darkness, good without evil. Live with danger. Live being prepared for danger. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Be tough, not weak. Be independent and worthy of living free.

 

 

Edit:

The only reason I’m including this little bit of information here is because it ties into the next movie post I’m making on this site.  So apparently ESPN (and Fox Sports from what I understand) was planning on not airing the national anthem segment of football games so that the controversy can be ignored and that the protesting players won’t get their free air time.  It pisses me off that it’s come to that, but that was their plan.  But now, as a result of this shooting, ESPN has decided to reverse this decision for the Monday game, 10-2-2017.  Let’s see if these assholes decide to kneel this time.