I’m glad to see this because I hate Hollywood and I hate all of the talentless elites that pollute it. So, at the end of the Oscars that I wasn’t watching, I don’t really care if any of them get assaulted over their little trophy ceremony.
That said, I’m writing this because this occurrence showcases two interests of mine – self-defense and free speech.
Starting with the obvious, force is only moral and (usually) legal in self-defense when someone has initiated an act of physical aggression upon you. Jokes at trophy ceremonies that you hate do not justify violence. The only rational response to such an act would be to insult Rock when accepting your ribbon for Best Actor – NOT refer to yourself as a “vessel of love” after decking somebody in a crybaby act of pathological narcissism.
By the way, his technique was horrible. It’s not like the movies right, Will?
The second talking point is whether or not Rock should’ve made such a joke about Smith’s wife, Jada who has a hair loss condition known as, alopecia. Yes. Yes, he should have. The Smiths are jokes. Will Smith’s son, Jaden is a joke. His wife is one big walking slut joke as she is in a polyamorous “marriage” with Smith. And Will is a joke for putting up with all of it and even laughing at the joke beforehand.
They’re a typical low-brow Hollywood circus act who, of course, will and SHOULD be fair game for a comedian at an international event where they sat in the front row.
And so what if it’s a hair condition she can’t control? Does this mean we can’t tell bald guy jokes anymore? Political correctness doesn’t expand this far, right?
Being a comedian is now officially a hazardous profession.
Here’s some tweets and memes:
I actually agree with him.
I can’t help but notice something else taking shape. I’m seeing a lot of pro-violence support from the gender of peace. Feminists where are you?
I hate being anecdotal but these are from my Facebook alone.
There’s nothing wrong with standing up for people you love but morally and legally it’s predicated upon how and when you do it.
I’m going to assume that this woman would support Sean Connery’s opinion on when to smack women.
The one above is from a guy!
Sense has gone extinct. Men get called “incels” for pointing out the insanely irrational dating standards of young women but a man who puts up with his wife whoring around and then turns violent over a joke doesn’t get called one?
They’re creating an incentive for men to be violent. More on this later.
Yeah? And I see a lot of victim blaming coming from the #MeToo gender.
Remember this: It’s okay to assault someone as long as you didn’t break their nose or knock them out. If you shoot them, stab them or pepper spray them over a bald joke and they don’t have a broken nose or get knocked out, it’s okay.
On a more serious note, it doesn’t matter whether or not someone gets hurt. You can make unnecessary physical contact with someone that DOESN’T injure or hurt them in the slightest and still get arrested and have charges pressed.
The nerve of this mental eunuch to even give reverence to the Oscars by saying, “it’s an awards show not a roast” is room temperature medium rare stupidity. We’re expected to exhibit the same reverence we would at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? The joke is on you. The Oscars and Pedophilewood are dastardly jokes.
Always know that if you’ve been friends with a comedian for years, it’s okay to assault them after they make a joke. As long as you’re acting violent in defense of a woman, it’s morally justifiable regardless.
I thought toxic masculinity was bad especially the kind where you attack someone for vocalizing in your direction. I’m getting a feeling of “exploitative” support here. Violence inflicted by men is okay so long as it’s done for “protecting” women. I’m still having a hard time seeing where a woman needed protection in this situation though.
Question: What if Smith slapped Amy Schumer for making the joke? Worse yet, what if a White guy smacked Rock? Board up your shops.
See, the problem with the “punching people you disagree with” philosophy is that it goes both ways in the world of equality. The people that support that don’t realize they could end up on the receiving end of what they supported. Of course, when they receive it right on the nose, then it is unjustified. Most importantly, hoards of those keyboard jockeys have never been punched or brave enough to punch someone.
This is an alarming mating preference I’m seeing here. Is the crave for “masculine” men that dire that they now (NOT ALL) fetishize over violent men? It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. During WWI, The White Feather Girls (a large portion who were feminists) gave white feathers to British men who were afraid to fight or dodged the draft. I heard recently that women were exhibiting this same behavior in Ukraine yet I cannot find any evidence. If you can, comment below.
Bill Maher recently did a great segment on toxic masculinity with regards to a similar form of behavior.
As for Smith, the final boss of insult humor (is there any other kind?) would be Don Rickles – who was bald himself. Here is he picking on Clint Eastwood.
I know this is old news but I have to write about it.
Cancel culture, an orgiastic struggle session for those who aren’t submissive to the collective, has impaled the employment of renowned UFC fighter, Gina Carano. Carano, who had previously starred in the action-romp Haywire (2011), had taken up employment under Dear Leader Mickey Mouse. She was the star of the Disney+ streaming show, The Mandalorian until she decided to disagree with the edicts of The Grand Rodent. In terms of cancel culture, I’d say Emperor Rat has been definitively caught without his white gloves.
Cancel culture has been here for quite some time and has successfully cancelled or attempted to cancel everything and everyone from app icons, sports mascots (Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Gauchos, etc.), bandnames, the renaming of schools, foodmascots, fooditself, art, pillows (you know who I’m referring to), books, statues, teachers, reporters, gravestones, hand gestures, movies (including Disney ones), Star Wars itself (surprised yet?), and Halloween costumes. Sometimes, it’s proactive like some of the examples given above in order to prevent extermination via red-haired, blue-checked and nose-pierced executioners. Usually, in those cases it’s because of virtue-signaling (Hey! Look at me!). Most of the time, it isn’t due to market or social demand but instead by the puppet masters themselves.
Origin – One could make a strong argument that its rise to fame in contemporary society was in Mao’s communist China under the banner of ‘struggle sessions‘. Struggle sessions are conducted when a person (sometimes wearing a dunce cap!) would stand in the center of jeering comrades who would hurl insults, slurs and threats to torture those who committed thought crimes. Usually, an execution followed. Several years ago, our current cancel culture was known as ‘call-out’ culture. That’s an incredibly abbreviated rundown. You could easily go back to the Bible to find instances of cancel culture if not further back before recorded history. Since struggle sessions are there to shame, they inevitably lead to erasure (also known as censorship).
Collectivism – The initial basis of cancel culture is collectivism (i.e., the treatment of individuals as a group). This must be maintained in order for the shepherds to maintain total homogeneity. What breaks homogeneity? Individual thinking. If you allow the sheep to splinter off with their own thoughts your rule starts to crumble. So, in their quest for conquer, the leaders (the most vocal) must maintain ideological conformity while the pions must unconditionally obey orders. In order to avoid ending up “under da see”, you must sacrifice your views for the sake of others who might be ‘offended’ or angered.
Moral righteousness – In order to radically maintain the fire that stokes their Maleficent mob, they must eject those who differ. To do this, they brainwash their Kronks into believing that anything outside of their cage is sinful. Anyone or any organization that disagrees is instantly deemed everything wrong with humanity. They make sure they swallow all the proper slogans and trigger words so whenever someone deviates that person will immediately get slapped with one of those ill-defined labels. They re-define words because they believe words can alter reality and therefore leverage them more control. A good example of this is the term ‘racism’.
The old school definition heavily focused around judging people by the color of their skin whereas today’s definition centers around “power + privilege” (i.e., any disparity is due to racism). If you disagree with their definition (what if disparities are caused by other factors?), you’re a racist. Carano is being accused of saying something ‘racist’. Psychologists are considering moral righteousness a mental illness in lines with narcissism.
Motivation – A prime motivator of cancel culture is who they’re going after. It’s one thing to crucify a private citizen but it’s another thing to go after someone like Gina Carano. These ‘noble crusaders who are on the right side of history’ are a lot of the time driven by Critical Theory. If that’s the first time you’ve heard that term you might be brainwashed by it. CT summed up is the idea that everything we are subjected to are oppressive (sometimes undetected) inherently political social constructs that are meant to subjugate the masses. Gina Carano, when associated with Marshal Mouse, was on the top of a societal hegemony and essentially in a position of power (CT is all about the seizing of ‘power’).
Power is viewed through the half-cocked idea that our brain is easily malleable to media if not entirely. This makes it all the more important to dethrone her. They’re called ‘woke’ because they’re the ones who are superior enough to be ‘awake’ to all of this oppressive propaganda. Carano was employed by the woke mafia and was therefore monitored carefully by their henchmen. Once dethroned, these relatives of Scar got a boost in self-esteem and as an inadvertent benefit can get a rise in social status. You see, it’s okay for them because they’re good. They crave that Hercules reputation.
What happened?
Pronouns – This didn’t start with the Nazi comparison post but instead with gendered pronouns. It seems as though a lot of Disney Red Shirts have plastered pronouns on their Twitter profiles to…I don’t know. Nonetheless, Carano didn’t want to be pressured into putting what gender she obviously is and instead put what she considered to be R2D2’s pronouns (beep/bop/boop). That’s funny. In fact, it’s not just funny, it IS funny. I pressed my caps lock key so hard on that one that the room I’m typing this in resembled the green night-vision you see on Big Foot hunting shows.
Now, the plot thickens.
Nazis – If you didn’t live under Nazi, Germany nor suffered PTSD from fighting off actual Nazis and Orange Man is Bad you’ve most likely compared, at some point, Trump to Hitler. Once losing that argument, you eventually labeled your Republican friends (what liberal has Republican friends?) as Nazis, fascists (the irony on that label is sweeter than Winnie The Pooh’s honey), KKK members, or White nationalists. That’s a given. In fact, it’s more given than a cherished Christmas present. To perhaps stay hip in principle, Carano hopped in the 21st century Nazi-analogy People’s Car (sorry Herbie!) except she didn’t take the exit to The Democratic People’s Republic of The Magic Kingdom. Instead, she used her three-speed to compare cancel culture and social media censorship to Nazism.
Why would that make sense? Did the German Socialist Workers Party implement censorship and despotic cancel culture? As someone who had grandfathers who had the male privilege of being drafted into ‘The Big One’, I don’t like Nazi analogies mainly since it degrades the memory of those who suffered and fought under Nazi rule. They’re too unrealistic. That being said, I think it’s permissible to perhaps make ideological comparisons but with regards to Orange Man Bad you’re full of it (‘it’ being the cotton they use to stuff Disney stuffed animals). This was NOT an Anti-Semitic remark however. This is Anti-Semitic. I admit the image is in bad taste but nonetheless I can’t say I disagree.
She was trying to make a point as to why censorship and banning opposing ideas are akin to Nazism. The Nazis used censorship to get rid of those they didn’t like. Now, I suppose you could argue, “Let me educate you, Jones. Censorship is only when the government does it. I have now got you.” Really? What keeps in place a dictatorship? The less than 1% that dictates behavior or the brainwashed masses who report their neighbors and smack it over their heads daily? Media today does the dirty work of an unestablished ‘official’ censor. It’s called ‘soft-totalitarianism’. If the government agrees with the behavior of multi-trillion dollar conglomerates, why even bother establishing an ‘official’ censor?
I could easily go into a stream of consciousness rant about why the Nazi label is whored around and the Communist Disney label isn’t. To make it short, the radical left has control of every major institution including Sexcrimewood.
The people that support this decision through the lens of Chinese accomplice Dictator Disney have no moral criteria to make any kind of judgement here because they refuse to weigh “beep/bop/boop” against the support of one of the most inhumane dictatorships in human history. Mainland China is unapologetically responsible for the persecution of Muslims, Christians, Uyghurs, and the LGBTQ community. They maintain and have maintained labor camps that Disney supported, racism, organ harvesting, population control, cannibalism, book and letter banning, persecuting Hong Kong protesters, segregation, forced sterilization, forced marriages, lying about COVID-19, unleashing COVID-19, being the most polluted country on earth, and produced history’s undefeated mass murderer, Mao Zedong (you thought it was Hitler). They still do, for the most part, all of this TODAY (my caps lock is sore now). If you support cancelling a strong and empowered woman for no reason you should also support Chairman Mouse committing suicide without mention.
When is the entirety of the Noble Progressive movement going to cancel itself? Colin Kaepernick’s unapologetic support of Castro, Jay-Z’s support of Che Guevara, a Portland mayoral candidate who loves Mao, BLM leader Susan Rosenberg who committed acts of terrorism on the Capitol, Bernie Sanders’ ode to Castro, The anti-semitic Women’s March leader, Linda Sarsour praising terrorist cop-killer, Assata Shakur, Joey B’s salacious conduct, and Kamala Harris’s rioter bail fund seem to be worthy reasons. There’s other minions (sorry, wrong studio). There’s other 101 filmmaking Disney diabolical Dalmatians that have gotten away with heinous (sometimes) actual crimes such as accused sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and threatening to blow up The White House. I’m not a lawyer but a grown man that pretends to be a pirate for a living blowing up The White House sounds illegal.
A definitely simple slip of the tweet was when, producer of Beauty and The Beast, Jack Morrissey said he wanted the MAGA kids (Nick Sandmann and friends) chucked into a woodchipper. Guardians of The Galaxy 3 director and writer, James Gunn, thinks a movie about a tree giving a kid a blowjob is wholesome Old Yeller entertainment. Thankfully, they got rid of him though. But what about these racists and sexists who were hired to write the new Star Wars franchise? They don’t count. Let’s instead persecute a former NFL player because he said ‘All Lives Matter‘.
If Eternal President Mouse hypocrisy was beautiful this is what it would look like. Pedro Pascal (he/him) is the actor who portrays the protagonist of the space helmet show. He posted this on Twitter in 2018 with the hashtag #ThisisAmerica. The bottom picture isn’t even from the US. It’s Palestinian children awaiting a meal in a (get this) “play area” during Ramadan. And yes, I just cited Snopes. That’ll be the last time.
The difference between this guy and Carano is that he thought the ‘right’ way or should I say the ‘left’ way. Hey feminists! Could this be sExiSm????
The vaccine – I’m skeptical too. I can already hear science-denying conspiracy theorist accusations coming from people who, ironically, think gender is entirely a subjective social construct. Carano was also found guilty of questioning the slapdash pop-out-of-nowhere totally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine that is so scientific health officials (including firemen) don’t want to get it. Who are Carano and I (both martial artists) to question Noble Napoleon and his trusty white lab coat (that’s trademarked) and his on ‘the right side of history’ brigade?
It’s their own business – It is. That being said, why do I get the feeling that the people who say that are the same people who either don’t mean it or are selective at applying that bromide? I’m hungry for cake but something tells me “tHaT’S dIFfeRenT!!”. First off, that’s not entirely true. You can’t do whatever you want on your own property. There’s still a significant amount of restrictions. For instance, if TGI Friday’s had a policy that said, “All patrons must be assaulted with a crowbar”, I’m fairly confident that’d be illegal. As far as employment goes, I think it’s just to be able to sue the source of your income if you believe there’s unfair treatment. Employers can’t just randomly fire you. It seems as though these flightless Peter Pans don’t know you can still criticize private companies. Why? Because they’re hoping they’ve got you on this pittance of an argument.
Money – Sexualassaultwood thrives off of whatever sells. They have no morals or principles like those who think they’re a moral organization. They just want money – specifically money from the parents of the ‘lil kiddies who can potentially be brainwashed by someone who is beeping, bopping, and booping.
Forget Carano for a bit, this next part is on dealing with life lessons in general.
Pragmatic Consequentialists – Not only do we have Shenzis, Banzais, and Eds finally embracing laissez-faire business practices but now they’re finally embracing personal-responsibility. Not really. As uttered by Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and her desired conservative hit list, multiple times, the cancel culture deniers will spout something along the lines of, “Actions have consequences” or “Weren’t you taught you need to be responsible?” Teaching people and yourself the importance of responsibility and the faculties that enable goal-setting and long-range thinking is a great pursuit. That being said, something tells me, either they don’t understand it that way or they’re playing fast and loose. It might be neither considering the fact that they hurl it out with close to no context.
Everything in life has consequences just by nature of existing. The question is are the consequences faced ‘rational’?
Someone who gets mugged walking down an ally could’ve made the wrong decision in the first place but he didn’t deserve those consequences nonetheless. This involved the needless coercion of others. This is opposed to dropping out of high school, having illegitimate kids, doing drugs and then expecting others to subsidize your reckless behavior through welfare. No one forced those people into those situations.
Utilizing free speech should not have these consequences. The most Carano should’ve been subjected to for such mundane things was argument and debate. If someone simply wants erasure in response to what someone has said it goes to show you how worthless their argument is. This is assuming they have one to begin with. It’s usually nothing but vapid hot-air rhetoric.
We all know what happened and it was only a matter of time. I’m still surprised to hear people say, “This will start a civil war!!”. Where have you been? The Capital was just stormed by the Vandals and this past summer large portions of the country were on fire as rioters clashed with law enforcement. We’re in it already and it’s going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Before I get into the meat of what has happened, I’d like to educate the virgins to history as to why, as serious as this is, is not the worst time in American history. The Capital has weathered worse including other terrorist takeovers, bombings and was even literally cremated as it burned to the ground once.
Who’s to blame, for what many are inclined to believe, is the most recent use of violence on the Capital in contemporary history? Donald Trump and his goon squad, rightfully so. It’s hard to pin down exactly who that squad is now considering he fires people every 9 seconds but by this point it’s anyone who wants to be employed by him.
Of course, those who rioted this past summer and claim to be against violence will instantly blame the entire Republican Party and those who voted for him. The exact opposite could not get anymore opposite. Almost everybody on the political spectrum has spoken out against this – hypocritically or not. For the 1 in 5 Trump supporters who think he has done a great job in handling the results of the election, I’d say I agree with you as his incitement to violence on his own government worked for several hours.
The biggest discussion now does not seem to be how we can all come together and act sensibly but instead further stoke the flames of the race riots we’ve already had by blaming white people. Not only blame white people, but once again make anecdotal divisive comparisons between police conduct at similar events as, once again, white police officers supposedly treated skin colors differently. I usually have a hard time understanding the concept of white privilege but this one is mind-boggling.
How do you maintain white privilege by having white people topple a government run by white people who rule over mostly white people that provides them with their white privilege? The people that did this were savages so I can see them not thinking through their plan of preserving “whiteness”.
Of course, I’m being told by Joey B. and his massive forehead that had this been black people they all would’ve been massacred for no reason.
Thousands of Twitter pions echoed this claim with Joey B. and his IMAX screen-sized forehead actually being one of the echoers. I’m not sure who started this unoriginal and used up race-baiting eureka talking point. I’m also not sure what this point is supposed to make. Is it pointing out double standards? Is it finally an admission that what happened over the summer weren’t mostly peaceful protests? Are they saying police brutality should have been used for both?
White privilege seems to be expanding so far to the point that now even being killed by fellow white law enforcement is deemed a form of privilege as multiple whites were either killed or died later due to the raid. To top off their white privilege, 82 white privileged arrests were made. Those who were killed in a typical white privileged manner included capital police officer, Brian Sicknick and Air Force veteran, Ashli Babbitt. Sicknick was smashed in the head with a white privileged fire extinguisher and Babbitt was shot in the neck with a white privileged rubber bullet. Among the white privileged capital police, 50 of them were injured.
It doesn’t get anymore white privileged than that.
The non-white disadvantage this summer resulted in total carnage as future cackling “fweedom” President, Kamala Harris set up a bail fund for rioters to get back out and destroy things.
In Washington, DC, whose summer was so hot it was on fire most of the time, multiple prosecutors dropped charges on rioters.
We had the Defund the Police movement that resulted in hoards of assaulted police officers with one being killed. The National Guard was called in only to be ordered to move out. The Mayor of Portland, Oregon, Ted Wheeler also continuously rejected Trump’s recommendation to send in the National Guard because that’s how much he wanted to maintain white government brutality.
In Seattle we had the incredible experiment of Chop/Chaz, run by Hip-Hop artist, Raz Simone, where an entire portion of the city was seized. In fact, the local police precinct hated the rifle-brandishing African-American so much that they shut down.
Police officers even got so scared that they used their white privileged knees to kneel for BLM rioters due to their white privileged white guilt.
Since the United States has always protected white people and not marginalized groups, let’s now take a time machine back to 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists were not killed when they shot and killed a white police officer while raiding the Capital.
In 1967, The Black Panther Party decided it’d be a good idea to storm the white-run Capital of Sacramento, California with shot guns where nothing happened to them.
Of course I couldn’t leave out feminists as in 2018, feminists broke through the police barriers on the steps of the Capital building in order to demand the removal of Justice Kavanaugh.
If you initiated devastating violence on a country to dismantle the supposedly oppressive government then you are a traitor. This is, of course, the core message of Critical Race Theory and Marxism.
What’s the cause of all this?
Of course, a scroll on Twitter will tell you white people however it is much more philosophically profound. Altruist-collectivism is the cause. When you dogmatize your movement, put it above your individual life, and sacrifice yourself for its unconditional cause you will get warfare. The belief that your side has a monopoly on truth makes possible the blood-baiting rhetoric of “you’re either for us or against us” and “you’re part of the problem”. Interestingly enough, for those who don’t identify with a side are deemed as the most complacent. It kind of sounds like so long as you’re on a side you’re okay…? Then again, that’s not true either because you must join the “right” side. We’re now all prosecuted by superficial association rather than by individual action.
Worse yet, with this logic, you’ll find massive hypocrisy as suddenly their non-existent morality flies out the window when they believe whenever their side commits a crime it’s just. The virginal “we never inflict violence” left and the virginal “we never inflict violence” right are a great example of this. They are both very potent forms of kerosene that just happen to create their own explosions. I’m not here to try and figure out which is worse. Someone’s business burning down and the government that was supposed to protect that business owner’s rights burning down are both bad.
People must view each other as individuals otherwise we’ll get what we already have. We need to find the common ideas of a free society that liberate us from viewing each other as groups defined by race, sex, and rigid political ideology.
If history shows anything, the most dangerous people are those who believe they are so right that they force it onto others.
In the meantime, the Capital has insurance, it’s just property, and you didn’t like their other forms of protest.
I’d like to give some thoughts on the whole face mask “controversy”. Should you wear them? Should you not wear them? Should we ditch them all together or should we would let people do as they please?
I’m going to go with the last option since it will most likely not lead everyone to being left at the whims of others.
To put it simply, it should not be mandated for states to enforce any type of mandatory mask policy for businesses, homes or for simply being outside. There is NO need for any of these authoritarian measures. The Health Department issued the mask provisions that most states have adopted yet it seems as though manipulative politicians, sometimes without even saying so, are treating them like laws. Even more alarmingly is the fact that tons of people think they are laws.
Take a look at what’s happened here.
The Health Department cannot pass laws nor has any state passed laws mandating people to wear masks. This is incredibly alarming. You have politicians and sometimes law enforcement going around enforcing “laws” that don’t even exist. That’s tyranny in a mask. In fact, North Korea, where a person can be sentenced to 3 months of hard labor for not wearing one, actually makes sense here. They’re a bonafide dictatorship yet here we have a supposedly free society cosplaying as a dictatorship when we don’t have to be.
On top of all of this, is the fact that no one really knows whether or not masks work. The most common masks are cloth masks. Studies have suggested that cloth masks may somewhat work or not work at all. I thought it was bad enough with helicopter moms being terrified about germs as much as they should be terrified about serial killers so I can only imagine the 9/11 security measures we’ll be inflicting upon innocent kids here on out.
Paraphrasing Peter Hitchens, a columnist for the Daily Mail, the entire COVID-19 panic is a great litmus test to see how compliant you would’ve been with history’s past atrocities. Sounds melodramatic? Well, there are people who think not wearing a cloth face mask will end civilization as we know it so who should win the prize here?
From the law enforcement perspective, there’s a ton of people who are violently and vocally coming out against racist police brutality. If you think that masks should be enforced by cops (something Governor Cuomo believes) be prepared for more of it. Why is the law enforcement debate in this country so moronic especially from liberals? If you want to enforce mask tyranny then you do realize that black neighborhoods should have the most police officers. After all, they are dying from it more than any other group so you have to make sure they’re wearing them.
You could be like a place in Oregon that dictated only whites had to wear face masks whereas non-whites did not have to. Definitely not racist because non-whites don’t have institutional power. Stupidity on a mask.
Think about it for once. There will be people in jail for not wearing a mask. There will be cops beating people up for not wearing fabric over their nose. While this is going on, in the background they’ll be rioters killing off a business that was 40 years of dreams come true for someone.
Do you want to know what it feels like to be a terrorist? Look no further than Delta Airlines. In order for you to get a mask exemption, you have to go through an intense vetting process trying to prove your disability (usually breathing problems). If you lie and they find out, you get put on a no-fly list until the entire pandemic will (never) be over.
Karens will also find themselves in danger. It’s bad enough we have bumbling minimum wage employees acting like bouncers but now we have fellow shoppers approaching people telling them to do something. I’m sorry but as a martial artist that’s dangerous. You don’t know who you’re yelling at. You don’t know their mental state. You don’t know how hard of a day Norman Bates just had. Karen needs to learn that telling a 6’5″ jacked dude to wrap Linus’s safety blanket around his nose could result in her funeral two days later. It’d be wrong for such an atrocity to take place but be safe and mind your own business. Let the store owner “risk” their life.
If you want to wear a mask, go ahead. If you don’t want to, please go ahead. If you’re a business who wants masks, please stipulate it. If you’re a business who doesn’t want that, please go ahead. If you are scared of contracting COVID-19, please stay inside. If you aren’t, please leave your house. Guys, 100% does not exist for anything. We’ll never get there. People think laws, laws, laws and laws will make people listen but there’s a reason why totalitarian countries have labor camps. No matter how many laws they have people still don’t listen.
A pregnant Australian woman recently got arrested at home in front of her family for posting on social media that she wanted to form an anti-quarantine protest. That’s all she did. Is that not tyranny?
Unfortunately where I go to school, George Mason University, they’ve created a policy where they control your behavior off campus. Yes, that’s right! You can’t go to “events” with more than 10 people or hang out with more than 10 people. They effectively control your life even in your home. On top of that, they are allowing students to report on other students if they see them in public violating these rules. That’s secret police.
Once a report is filed by that Kim Jong-un Jr., and the gestapo sees you on campus you can get charged with trespassing and if you refuse you’ll effectively get arrested because you attended the 10-plus attendee funeral of a loved one on Saturday. There isn’t even a fair trial here. Let’s say the little Castro that reports you has photographic and video evidence of you at such an “event”. How is that incriminating? There’s video evidence of tons of crimes yet there’s still court cases.
Who knows whether or not I’ll be in prison if the GMU gestapo reads this. Are the InfoWars guys really that wrong after all this time? No. No they’re not. We’re not lizards though…yet.
What’s an event by the way? What about grocery stores? Aren’t there more than 10 people in them? What if you go to a mall? Aren’t there usually more than 10 people there? Can I go to a movie? Those are coming back now in full vigor. Doesn’t it only take one person to carry this plague? Isn’t it more about numbers rather than about what constitutes as an “event”.
It’s tragic as well that this is happening at a school named after one of the greatest purveyors of freedom in this country.
Hypothetically, as a country, what would happen if we got to zero cases of coronavirus? Do you think we’d be “allowed” to take off the masks? Hell no. The masks are what brought us to safety in the first place. Keep wearing them these little Stalins will say.
If you want masks and they’re the savior of the human race, can’t you apply them consistently? I have to walk into a restaurant with them on but can take them off when I eat. Wal-Mart, according to a corporate memo, only enforces the mask policy at the door but once you’re in you’re free to not wear them. For now, you can walk around in Virginia without one on however there are states and places like D.C. where it’s not allowed under the penalty of Soviet Union laws (i.e., you get fined). If you don’t pay that fine I’m assuming they’ll be a warrant for your arrest eventually.
They say this isn’t tyranny and then in the next breath say, “How about you just wear a mask?”. Thank you for proving my point but at gunpoint and social pressure I will not.
Be Water is a documentary that’s a part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series about legendary martial arts star, Bruce Lee. The nearly 2-hour documentary covered Lee’s life in both the United States and Hong Kong film industries along with commentaries on his philosophy.
If you’re as big of Bruce Lee fan as I, this will be nothing new. It covers all of the generic information that’s been around for decades. Some film and photo rarities did manage to sneak in every now and then so, for a Lee fundamentalist that’ll mean you won’t turn up empty handed.
The production was creatively executed. Instead of a traditional talking heads documentary, we got audio interviews from all the familiar voices. Contributions from his widow, Linda Lee Cadwell, archival material of his son, Brandon, various students, friends, film industry acquaintances, miscellaneous family members and Asian culture historians and critics are all tied up by narration from his daughter, Shannon. Since there wasn’t any cutting back and forth from the interviewees we got to see way more of what matters most with regards to photos and film. This is about as far as I go in liking the documentary.
Why do I say this? Well, because it’s 2020. And within the past couple years everything has become littered with social panhandling, virtue signaling, woke-ism and flawed race-baiting and sex-baiting agendas. This, of course, is all tucked under the term ‘socially conscious’. How does this garbage apply to the Bruce Lee special?
Although, the ‘meat’ of the documentary is Bruce Lee it’s sandwiched between, not bread, but instead dense woke-ism and literal lecturing. Most of the time I was lectured to as to why the United States is a “racist” country which one of the Asian commentators bluntly states.
I knew something like this was going to happen right from the start once his daughter mentioned the word “systemic”. It’s true that he was discriminated against but here it’s made to sound like he was under constant attack from the vicious Yankee Devils that he loved and chose to live with.
It seems as though the compilers of the special failed to piece together how much the San Francisco-born Lee loved the United States as he absorbed every facet of American culture from attitudes to behaviors. In fact, he was so patriotic that he got circumcised at age 22 which is something relayed to us in Matthew Polly’s 2018 biography, Bruce Lee: A Life.
The biased hatred of the United States is very obvious once you realize that never once is Chinese and Japanese bigotry ever brought up. Never once did any of the race-hustling cultured Asian cretins ever talk about how the racist Chinese Kung-Fu community did not want Lee teaching non-Chinese – especially Japanese – Kung-Fu. Never once did it go in-depth about how he was bullied by Chinese kids for being Eurasian-American (Lee was 1/8th Dutch Jew).
You’d also think the several Asian historians and critics interviewed would’ve wiped away the biased shit from their eyes and talked about how racist Chinese and Japanese cinema has been.
Sure, Mr. Yunioshi (the minor comedic yellow-faced character portrayed by Mickey Rooney) from Breakfast At Tiffany’s (1961) is the usual stock example these Asian race-pimps pull up. Still, these race-pornographers never bring up how badly a fair amount of Asian movies portray blacks, hispanics, Indians and Arabs.
In particular for blacks, seldom are they called blacks but instead “negroes” and seldom are they played by blacks but instead by Asian actors and actresses in blackface or brownface. You also couldn’t even begin to count how many Chinese and Japanese movies there are where they portray each other as villains.
Interestingly enough, the Hong Kong film industry didn’t respect Lee on his return as his artistic visions often clashed with Chinese filmmaking methods of the day.
If you were to use the racism detecting standards these, what Larry Elder would call, victicrats utilize, Bruce Lee’s movies, hilariously, wouldn’t even pass their test. In his “anti-racist” movie, Fist of Fury (1972) where all the Japanese are portrayed as bad guys there’s a scene where Lee fights against a racist park policy where Chinese and dogs are not allowed. At the gate of the park is an attendant that’s supposed to be an Indian Sikh but is clearly a Chinese actor with brown grease paint slathered all over his face. Adding insult to injury is the dub’s comedically stereotypical Indian accent.
So, it’s a scene against racism that has racism in it. Who needs comedy when you have real-life?
The esteemed race-hustlers who guide the special also apply the old PC canard with their offense to caucasian actors portraying Asians. With regards to U.S. movies, other than Mr. Yunioshi, they cite old Charlie Chan movies as an example (i.e., caucasian actors with eye makeup usually played the Chinese super sleuth). What they supposedly forgot to mention was that in Fist of Fury, close to every “Japanese” person you see is played by a Chinese.
I don’t necessarily consider this next one a stereotype per say but I can see how it could be interpreted as one. In Way of The Dragon (1972) a Muhammad Ali-imitating black henchmen for the mafia trying to take over his family’s restaurant is dubbed in what may be the most hilarious imitation of a black guy’s voice the world has ever heard.
According to Steven Kerridge’s book, Legend of The Dragon (a book on the making of WOTD), Bruce Lee himself dubbed (HK movies were shot silent and later dubbed by voice actors) a “southern” imitation of a black guy. The dubbing supervisors thought it was so hilariously bad that they re-dubbed it with another guy’s voice that’s still probably just as terrible as Lee’s was. Apparently, Lee was disappointed upon hearing the final cut as he felt his impression was spot-on. Depending upon how you hear it though, it could actually be a bad impression of Chris Tucker.
The bottom line is that the U.S. film industry is still considered the villain no matter how many chances they gave him. The truth of the matter is no one knew how to market a martial arts star at the time.
I understand that Lee was Asian and American movies didn’t have Asian leads so that made it trickier but in the end Hollywood was god damn good to him. They changed their ways within less than a decade. You know who hasn’t? Chinese cinema. Count how many non-Chinese actors and actresses you see in their movies. I’d wait for the non-existent answer (i.e., there are close to none) but I have a life to live.
The U.S. is never once mentioned as the eventually accepting bastion of non-white hope that it actually is considering it sort of single-handily introduced the world to martial arts cinema with the release of Enter The Dragon (1973). It’s suspicious as to why the geniuses behind this special refused to even acknowledge for a second, despite its lapses in judgement, the U.S. was great to Lee in the end.
As far as social issues go, the wage gap is brought up concerning his pay on The Green Hornet. Here it’s supposedly due to racism. Bruce Lee was the lowest paid actor in the predominantly caucasian cast. First off, there’s not one TV show or movie where every actor and actress get paid the same wages. Second, there’s no evidence to suggest this was racism. Third, Bruce Lee was unknown at the time. Fourth, he had close to no U.S. acting credits. And fifth, the role of Kato (Hornet’s sidekick) originally was not a major character in the series. Unfortunately, the show only lasted one season (1966 – ’67) so one can only speculate as to whether or not there would’ve been a pay raise as their usually is for continuous TV shows.
The next issue brought up is the Model Minority Myth. The Model Minority Myth essentially states that the success of Asians in the U.S. is due to the government trying to exploit them as an example that any racial group in the U.S. could be successful if they adhere to American ideals.
Well, that seems to be the case as Asians leave caucasians in the dust when it comes to income, intelligence and education. So, maybe white Americans should embrace American ideals for once much the like the multi-millionaire Bruce Lee.
As the special becomes more anti-American, it starts to delve deep into African-American racial issues as former student and co-star NBA basketball champ, Kareem-Abdul Jaabar narcissistically summarizes how oppressed he is. The special tries to make a case as to how Lee was culturally connected to radical black racial groups and even radical Asian racial groups. Jaabar makes an unfounded claim that Lee was in total support of black liberation groups. Really? I doubt it, for reasons explained later, but if so, there’s no evidence of any kind other than what Jaabar says here.
The biggest problem with the special is the way his philosophy is presented. Lee’s philosophy is very individualistic. Here it’s presented as being about collectivistic ethnic pride and group identity. Lee spoke out against all of these concepts as he was anti-tradition, anti-dogma and didn’t believe people should be treated as representatives of their culture or country but instead as individuals. This is why Jaabar’s claim is highly unlikely or at least presented erroneously.
With regards to martial arts styles, he rebelled against the rigid collectivistic closed-systems they had become. This is also another reason why the Chinese Kung-Fu community hated him. He was re-arranging and changing centuries worth of Kung-Fu techniques and, in some cases, westernizing them. This misunderstanding is, not only perpetuated by the contributing interviewees, but unfortunately by his own daughter.
I understand how documentaries like to set a backdrop in order to contextualize the subject but here it’s horrible. It feels as if you’re watching two completely different documentaries simultaneously with one being about why the U.S. sucks and the other being a documentary that cited a lukewarm and sometimes inaccurate Wikipedia entry on Lee.
Kerridge, who wrote the previously mentioned book, declined working on the project and was later surprised to see a photoshopped image of his that depicts what looks like Lee in a Mercedes. The actual picture is of John Little, a man responsible for books on Lee’s philosophy and training methods, sitting in a Mercedes that was the model Lee owned.
Kerridge speculates that they took the image from Google. You’ve got to love their professionalism. There was also workout footage of Lee that accidentally slipped in footage of his student, Louis Delgado. The compilers obviously mistook him for Lee.
Shannon has recently posted a slew of political posts on the official Bruce Lee Enterprises social media platforms. These posts consist of nothing but insults toward the United States. Posted were a video with asshole center-of-attention Asian restaurant owners crying disproven discrimination during the COVID-19 panic, a pro-riot lament utilizing text from an opinion piece by professional victim, Jaabar and a lengthy post on George Floyd’s death where she embarrassingly tried to apply her father’s philosophy to dismantling supposed systemic racism.
It’s interesting to see since there’s no recorded evidence of Lee pontificating on political or social issues. In fact, in Polly’s biography he takes note of how Lee never partook in events that pertained to the civil rights movement.
I respect Shannon’s effort in preserving her father’s legacy but now she’s trying to politicize it and in the process seems to be painting him as some sort of savior civil rights leader for Asians. As much as I love Bruce Lee, he is just a martial arts actor at the end of the day.
He never played the victim card whenever he faced adversity but instead with an, “I’ll show them” attitude. In the end, it worked out.
As for the name of the special, someone has to give credit where credit is due. The “be water” quote technically isn’t Lee’s. It’s old eastern philosophy that spans back centuries. The pliability of water is symbolic of being aware and adaptive to your environment to prevent mental stagnation. More confounding is the fact that the version Lee recited in interviews was a paraphrased version written by writer and student, Sterling Silliphant for Lee’s appearance in an episode of Longstreet (1971 – ’72). In recent years, it has been attached to his legacy as almost being a catchphrase with this documentary making it sound like it’s something he came up with. Let it be noted that Lee never claimed credit for the quote or philosophy.
There seems to be a lot of comedians on the left lately. Don’t expect any knock-knock jokes though. Instead, be prepared for both racist and misandrist “jokes”. The two comedians we’ll be analyzing in this post are Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden and feminist (feminism is a subsidiary of the Democratic party), Clementine Ford.
Joe Biden, who has been on a standup tour since he first began his career in politics, “humored” the internet in an interview on The Breakfast Club podcast. Biden “joked”, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
That’s really funny but then again it seems as though the Democratic party is funny in general when it comes to this form of racist “humor”.
The score for decades has been that black conservatives and, in some cases, libertarians are nothing more than a combination of Uncle Toms, Auntie Toms, lawn jockeys, tar babies and (depending upon whether or not you’re Don Lemon) negroes. These racial slurs all tend to get flung at blacks who don’t fit into the Democratic prescribed ideological “mold”.
In fact, conservative commentator Larry Elder is so sick of it that he’s embraced the term in a positive context and is making a documentary about black conservatives.
Forgive my surprise when I found that there was a fair amount of controversy surrounding Biden’s remark as if this is the first time such a comment has been directed at blacks. This is absolutely patently racist. To say that somebody should think a certain way based upon their melanin and never deviate from that is the epitome’s son of everything that is wrong right now in the identity politics bloodbath.
For some, the remark itself wasn’t problematic but instead the melanin of the person who said it as there are black liberals who are not okay with the comment simply because Joe Biden is white. Once again, when my side does it it’s okay and when your side does it it’s not okay. I’m glad to know both good and evil here are largely indistinguishable from one another.
Still, I’m not seeing how this is a joke though but here’s an argument as to why this “joke” isn’t “funny”.
Melanin has nothing to do with ideas. Ideas are the result of thinking. Sure, ideas are black and white but not in the sense of skin color but instead in the sense of right and wrong. To say an idea is rational for one group and irrational for another group is epistemologically erroneous. Being that we are human beings living in objective reality what’s true for you certainly is true for me regardless of the slightly different superficialities we may have.
Most importantly ideas are not the invention of “groups”. To say that people should think collectively is not thinking at all but instead conformity. Thinking is a product of the individual and only the individual. He or she can learn from others but others can never think for him or her. Kim Jong-un does not do the thinking for North Koreans no matter how much he tries to tell them he does.
A supposed group identity is a grammatical fiction. We’re all individuals. To refer to individuals as groups is a violation of the Law of Identity (A is A) at minimum. People and their ideas cannot nor should not be defined by their melanin. If you are a purveyor of group-think you are obviously comfortable with the idea of someone else defining who you are. Those who preach “blackness” or “whiteness” preach collectivism.
I don’t think it’s a joke. Both black and white leftists alike have a glorious history of saying things to a similar effect and Biden doesn’t seem to be deviating from their usual intellectual debauchery. Maybe I’d be willing to settle this as being a joke if liberals declare everything else he’s said as a joke. That’s a fair settlement to make. Biden and the Democratic party are jokes in and of themselves.
Sense of humor is subjective as we’ll soon learn.
On to “my favorite” – feminism.
Radical feminist, Clementine Ford, a malicious misandrist brain butcher of the highest degree has made a career built upon ideological misandry – something that Aussie tax dollars are currently paying for (see bottom).
After her, “KILL ALL MEN” Twitter rampage some years ago, now she’s “joking” about the very real deaths of men at the hands of COVID-19.
Like Biden, there’s nothing too new here. Both are mentally deficient in the “humor” department and both deploy depraved double standards whenever need be.
The cartoonish backpedaling Ford did once she surprisingly found out that people didn’t get the “joke” is cringeworthy. She tried to scurry away by pointing out that men hypocritically complain about women not getting “dark humor” yet here they are getting offended by such a comment.
Ford, like all vagina hat-thumping feminists, then deployed a recently constructed logical fallacy known as a Kafka Trap (named after Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial). Put simply, a Kafka Trap is when denial or disagreement of an accusation is taken as a confession. The more you disagree or find the claim objectionable the more (in their eyes) you’re admitting to your “crime”. So, their claim is essentially unfalsifiable in the most illogical sense possible.
Here’s a good example of this:
According to her, the more men criticize her the more they exhibit male fragility wherein they fear being made to look “weak” and “emasculated” by a woman. Absolutely. That has to be the only reason why men might get slightly angered and outraged at such a “joke”. Once again, the more criticism and insulting she may receive the more she’ll take it as an admission of male fragility.
Like a massive stroke victim, Ford then flew off the rails in a completely different direction and went on a tangent about how this “joke” was criticizing men for not doing their fair share of “unpaid” housework during the pandemic because they’re too busy dying. This is an old feminist argument dating back to the late 60s and early 70s except here Ford awkwardly inserts COVID-19. The article, which she didn’t even originally post, has close to nothing to do with her contextless “joke”.
I’m not sure how men dying quicker even relates to them doing more housework. It’s a non-sequitur. If you want them to die quicker how can they do more housework? Why joke then if you’re trying make a serious point?
Does this mean she wants them to stop working? If they still work a full-time job to make eating possible for the family and do housework they still have (what sounds like) unequal double-duty. If they die, they actually have quadruple-duty because now they have to work, die, resurrect themselves and then take out the trash. Feminism always seems to actively tout inequality. Then again, with this current pandemic’s rapid unemployment housework may soon become non-existent for everybody for all the wrong reasons.
Take a look at this one.
“Pretend an egregious harm has been done to them!”? I thought it was feminists / women(?) who are pretending they’re the victims because they’re surviving the pandemic. It seems as if the horrific impact feminists claim this is having on women is the shoulder pain they get from acting like a spoon is an airplane for their baby.
By the way, black guys are safe from dying in her demented utopia even though they’re primarily dying from it. I thought she was being racist there for a second but now that she rearranged logic and the english language to her liking her double-standards are sound.
This isn’t a lesson in how to be comedic but instead on how to communicate with other human beings. If you want to make a joke, go ahead. If you want to make a dark joke, go ahead but context is important. If I were to tweet, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer” or “Blacks can’t think for themselves” and you were to accuse me of being a sadistic racist and sexist rodent you’d be right in doing so. What I’m saying is blunt. It’s literal.
There’s no context established here for it to be anything other than what it says. Had I tweeted, “To say, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer”, is absolutely abhorrent” or “Liberals think blacks can’t think for themselves” then I’d establish clearly what I’m trying to convey. The same is true of humor but then again a comedian can’t just spat random things out and hope they’re intrinsically funny just because of his or her profession. A good example of that is Wanda Sykes.
In the end, Ford sort of apologized but only once she found out her arts grant from the Australian government was threatened.
It’s not really an apology. What’s she’s saying is, “I’m sorry you’re not superior enough to understand me.”
Usually, the PC police (the left) hate jokes about sex and race but when it comes to insulting straight white males and non-leftist blacks, oh boy, all bets are off.
Recently, a buzz has been going around social media. The buzz at hand is a viral homemade selfie video of actress Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) leading a cast of others in a selfie video montage singing John Lennon’s musical landmark, “Imagine”.
“We are in this together, we will get through it together.”
Gal Gadot just posted a video of her and other artists (who are also quarantined because of the COVID-19) singing Imagine by John Lennon on Instagram. pic.twitter.com/fRV6GhAF92
From what I’ve seen (and what you’ll see in the tweets below) it has been smacked with being, at its least, unbearably cringeworthy and, at its worst, unbearably patronizing. I’m assuming cringeworthy because it’s a bunch of hypocritical rich people singing about “having no possessions” and dishonestly caring about us pions from their 150-room mansions. I assume patronizing because it’s silver-spoon-in-mouth elites trying to act like they’re facing hard times like us ‘little people’.
I found out about this video on Twitter, not from the people I linked to below, but from the original Wonder Woman herself, Lynda Carter. Carter is a singer these days so she can actually carry a bit of the tune (unlike a lot of the others) even though it’s awkward to see a 70s has-been trying to remain relevant through 2020s virtue-signaling. If she’d stick strictly to her nostalgia she wouldn’t embarrass herself like she did here from her pixelated webcam.
I gather that what attaches “controversy” to the video isn’t necessarily the celebrities in it but with the deceased man who wrote it. The hypocritical line in the song composed by a multi-millionaire that grabs your common senses’s attention is, “Imagine no possessions”. This is most likely the basis of the hatred for this video aided by the fact that it stars multi-millionaires.
As we all know Lennon was and is one of the richest musicians in history whose estate still makes hundreds of millions despite him being dead for about 40 years now. Why’s it that materialistic people with millions of possessions always positively imagine themselves without possessions? That’s something no North Korean peasant would ever do. Of course, it isn’t for one second an honest thought.
I guess if you’re genuinely poor though you’d be nuts to not want possessions. Insane for the rich and bad for the poor?
I guess Lennon was bored with his Rolls Royce, Ferrari, lucrative royalty checks for his songs and Beatles songs, and multiple penthouses at one of the most exclusive multi-millionaire paradises in New York City, The Dakota. It’s amazing what inspires artists I guess. In the case of this video, it seems like it was boredom from their vacation (i.e., self-quarantine).
Please don’t dump exclusively on Lennon though. As someone who dabbles in art, it has always amazed me that artists claim to be so anti-materialistic (“I only do it because I love it, man”) yet at the same time go onto sell their crap for millions and rub shoulders with the elites. It’s also ironic that artwork is a material possession in and of itself that has historically been exclusively owned and traded by the rich.
I’ve written here before about my love of The Beatles and their hypocrisies as individuals but I love the song “Imagine”. I obviously don’t like the hypocritical line about advocating for no property but overall I think its has a good feathery message and is catchy.
I noticed a lot of the detractors are discrediting this video because of Lennon’s personal inconsistencies but, as I’ve reiterated before, don’t confuse the artist with the art. If you criticize art through the personal idiocies of its creators you lose objective judgement of the work at hand. However, that doesn’t mean the art itself can’t express nonsense. There are artists who have ingrained their personal hypocrisies in their work (this is a good example) but I don’t think that should shatter the work entirely or the people who perform it.
Aside from the Lennon angle, some of the detractors get it wrong as well. While we have multi-millionaire hypocrites on one side we have people coming at it from the whole “materialism is bad” angle. Well, possessions are good. Humans live in prosperity because of them. They’re a signifier of hard work, creativity, productivity, and producing something of value. The traits of a human can be determined by what they produce. If I was Lennon, I’d have realized that honestly earned possessions are what have brought about peace. If we didn’t have property rights and trade goods for mutual benefit we’d be robber barons. For most of history, people weren’t allowed to own quality possessions or at least a lot of them. That’s one of the ways tyrannical governments make victims out of the masses by abolishing trade and production which enables them to seize their possessions.
It’s okay to be rich and own mansions ad nauseam but don’t bash what’s made you affluent. It’s also okay to be rich and genuinely help those outside of your tax bracket but don’t act like you’re a savior and then patronizingly try and relate.
Despite, what you might call my opinionated take on the subject, my personal reaction to this video isn’t actually that strong. At first glance I viewed it as if a vapid Facebook profile filter promoting a cause could sing. It doesn’t hurt but it doesn’t help. It isn’t creative and it’s far from original. It’s like a lazy “lay in bed” version of the We Are The World video – a video that stars holier-than-thou millionaires singing to us about how they can save of us from (insert problem).
What inspired my take here was when I saw commentators that I admire rip it a part. I see the hypocrisies they see and hate the patronization by these self-aggrandizing elites cosplaying as saviors. Honestly, I’d rather have this soon-to-be forgotten video than a stupid politically revved up award acceptance speech.
Gal Gadot leads a star-studded cast in song as they put their very own spin on John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’
It is so comforting to see these wealthy actors take time from their daily struggles to enrich the world with their auditory talents using Lennon’s Imagine to fight this pandemic. I’m feeling more hopeful. Thank you Prof. Dr. @GalGadot et al. You are the frontline heroes we need. https://t.co/CVtinc8p17
These two are from evolutionary psychologist, Gad Saad deploying his legendary, “saadtire”.
In light of the heroic clip posted by @GalGadot and her courageous celebrity friends (wherein they sang "Imagine"), it would be nice for academics to create a similar montage singing the same song. I'm thinking of doing a duet with @jordanbpeterson. Thoughts?
we don’t need to see a bunch of fucking rich people in their mansions singing “imagine” right now. people are out of work you tone deaf twats!!! i hate this video!! 🤮🤮🤮 https://t.co/OJD2HQZDtp
These two are from filmmaker and Youtuber, Dan Bell. Bell is most known for his Dead Mall series (a series that showcases dying old malls) and Another Dirty Room (a series where he and his cohorts expose repulsive seedy motels).
i just realized that old hag lynda carter was in that vomit inducing imagine video. at least she knows what it’s like to be unemployed.
Celebrities at home thinking “How can we stay relevant?” Ah yes – sing a song from our plush mansions talking about a world with no possessions! This video is worse than the actual virus! 🦠
Lauren, that doesn’t count. “Imagine” is a John Lennon song and “Let It Be” is a Beatles song. They’re incomparable.
Morbid fun fact – One of the reasons Lennon’s assassin killed him was because he considered him a “phony” (as inspired by J.D. Salinger’s Catcher In The Rye).
Sydney Watson, is a Youtuber who criticizes a plethora of SJW cultural facets not limited to anti-male feminism. I like her videos and watch them from time to time. I came about her a couple months ago from a retweet where she gave the sage advice to women to never date male feminists. I agree. That’s the same advice I’d give women as well.
To make a long story short, Watson over time has made me realize something; that something being that there are young women who are the equivalent of male feminists. Male feminists, to give context, are beta men that cloak themselves in the self-loathing robe of pro-female proselytization all in order to date and have sex with them. They think that by self-flagellating about how oppressed and victimized women are and how privileged they themselves are women will be attracted to them out of their own moral righteousness.
Today, Watson posted the following:
To put Watson’s tweet in context, if you watch her YouTube videos and follow her on Twitter she does do a fair amount of posting about how “undervalued” and “unnoticed” men are. Her most gushy and cringe-worthy day was on International Men’s Day where a significant amount of her tweets suspiciously pushed the limit in idolizing the contributions of men to the human race.
It was here I began to think what if she was doing this to help attract men in order to compensate for her being single? Today, I was proven right. It seems as though a large portion of her prominent “men are in distress” threads are there for a dubious reason. This is why I consider this type of female behavior in line with male feminist panhandling. It’s there to “attract” the opposite sex.
There is a distinction to be made though between these types of women and male feminists. They’re a narrow category in that they don’t lineup with all diagnostic criteria with their male counterpart. Most women who “lament” for men are SINGLE women in their late 20s to 30s (i.e., twilight time as far as dating, marriage, and kids go). The single part is key because it motivates them to rope in suitors with their supposedly “pro-male” rhetoric.
It’s interesting to note how pro-male females extol men as heroes and how male feminists extol women as victims.
Male feminists can be any age usually. Unlike male feminists though, female equivalents usually don’t partake in self-flagellation. They almost never pull out the whip and shame themselves for being born female and then pander for repentance. The closest they may come to doing so is by bashing feminism; this “evil” invention of women.
I’m not sure how we’re supposed to react to Watson’s sentiment here. Are we supposed to feel sad and cry? Are we supposed to comfort her? Are we supposed to laugh? Are we supposed to be amused? Are we supposed to offer up our resumes for a potential date? My first reaction was embarrassment. Whining about how we should feel sorry that her dating life is unlucky? Join the contemporary human race.
I’m trying to seriously figure it out. Am I supposed to think, “Wow. How pathetic have men become?”. If a guy did this, he’d be called an incel.
To be honest, I liked her tweet. I agree that men have become passive and emasculated today. What I disagree with here is her self-centered context. If men are a certain way now, which I think Watson is blowing out of proportion here, they need to fix themselves individually for themselves and not do so in order to make themselves marketable for shallow women.
The thread itself is a carnival of women, presumably, around Watson’s age lamenting with her “strife”. Even the Feminist Next Door (a radical feminist Twitter user) somehow hopped in adding to the comedic gold. Two of the most loathly tweets are from Cassandra Fairbanks and Courtney Holland.
Fairbanks bills herself in her Twitter bio as, “Federal court says I “trolled the web through Twitter.” An “information terrorist” according to Wired. Free Press. Free Speech. Free Assange. Unusual American.”
I’m not sure what I’d call somebody with that bio but I would recommend she adds “manipulative” and “degenerative asshole” to it.
Fairbanks tweeted the following:
Like Watson’s tweet, I’m not sure how we are all supposed to react. She “gave up so hard”? Really? I didn’t feel the earth shake. I didn’t hear any men weep about her loss and I still don’t. But take a look at what the meat of her tweet tells. She manipulated and dated a man that she did not find desirable or respectable for an entire year.
If women like Fairbanks see their moral depravity they’d realize this abusive dishonest behavior is something that results in men being reluctant to enter into relationships with women. I mourn the men and women who were taken advantage of by their desperate partner who only wanted them for sex as a romantic “painkiller” to ease their loneliness. Contrary to popular belief, men like women with standards.
Holland, according to Human Events, is a “Conservative Millennial, Political Activist, and co-founder of MAGA Meetup: Las Vegas“.
Trying to upstage Fairbanks, Holland tweeted the following, almost giving this thread an AA support group-feel for women who only care about men as far as their dating life goes.
Should we give a shit that you’re with her?
It’s seems as though, as far as political parties and social ideologies go, men are stuck with the crappy two-party system. Conservative women, with their high heels and cleavage, want men with high-social status and not an Anime collection. Liberal Women (aka feminist women), decked out in their hairy vagina costumes, want men to castrate themselves in the name of Jane Fonda. Not much of a choice here. Conservative women lie about wanting to help men whereas Liberal women openly express hatred toward men.
Your choices are get shot and killed with or without a silencer.
And what’s going on with Watson’s (presumably) personal definition of masculinity here? Guns, dogs, and country music? The gun descriptor is something feminists equate masculinity with. That’d be like a guy equivocating femininity with boobs, big lips, and bubblegum pop.
It is true that women like men with high-social status and I’m glad there’s people out their spreading awareness about the current flux men are in. That being said, is the movement worth it if it’s just to give SINGLE women in their 30s bountiful dating options as far as education and social status go?
I’d like to thank these SINGLE women for revealing their true colors. Liberal women view men as ultra-masculine destructive hulks whereas these women view men as sniveling passive cowards who aren’t up to their refined standards. Both want a reform.
Where have all the good men gone?
Away from you.
If they cared about men they’d be discussing how men can fix their problems. Instead, they’re discussing why men aren’t satisfying their needs.
All this being said, there are honest women that want to help men and realize the adversarial nature of feminism toward them. Janice Fiamengo (The Anti-Feminist), Christina Hoff Sommers (The Factual Feminist), Camille Paglia (feminist), Karen Straughan (Men’s Rights Activist), Cassie Jaye (filmmaker, The Red Pill), and Lauren Chen (The Pseudo Intellectual, formerly Roaming Millennial). What’s with the all titles? Maybe I should get a title. Stephen Jones (Bruce Lee incarnate). There you go.
Has identity politics gotten this bad? It’s bad enough people think that when you vote for a candidate or identify with a certain political party you agree with all of its stances. Now you apparently are a traitorous hypocrite if you like certain bands and voted for certain politicians.
At first glance, I want to say that this didn’t even happen but then again I’m sure there’s tons of Trump-supporting Beatles fans out there who post both Trump and Beatles on social media. The Beatles are loved by generations of people now. I am a huge Beatles fan but this is so absurd I had to write about it after seeing it posted by one of my liberal Facebook friends.
Like most applications of identity politics it immediately equates you with the embodiment of evil if you oppose a certain narrative. That “certain narrative” here is laughably The Beatles. Instead of a political or social ideology being rendered as the only moral option, The Beatles here are portrayed as the only moral choice when pitted against Donald Trump (apples and oranges anybody?). You’re a traitor to the religion known as The Beatles (i.e., all that’s good in the world) if you support Trump.
Like most charlatans that preach their holier-than-thou political platform that condemns people personally, were The Beatles, as individuals, worthy of admiring their own music? As a Beatles fan, it pains me to bring up the following but I think it puts a major hole in the moral piety of the meme.
John Lennon was the most “rotten” Beatle yet at the same time the Beatle most adamant about peace and love (minus Ringo today). He once smacked a girl in high school when she refused (she’s interviewed in this documentary) to have sex with him. He slapped around his first wife, Cynthia Powell and first son, Julian when easily angered as Powell would later tell in her autobiography, John. He sent DJ and Beatles friend, Bob Wooler, to the hospital with broken ribs when he jokingly hinted at Lennon having a love affair with The Beatles’ gay manager, Brian Epstein. He had hoards of affairs with who knows how many women while married. His second son, Sean had to be rushed to an emergency room after he maniacally screamed into his ear for not knowing how to cut steak. Ironically, Lennon usually sided with the radical left in the early 70s. He wrote a love song to terrorist conspirator, Angela Davis, who was involved with the mass murdering terrorists, The Soledad Brothers. He also buddied up to scumbags, Huey Newton, Bobby Seal, and Jerry Ruben. It’s funny how liberals turn a blind eye to this.
Paul McCartney, while nowhere near as sadistic as John, fell more into the “stock” vices of show business. He cheated on his girlfriend, Jane Asher, several times throughout the run of their relationship. The final straw being in 1968 when she supposedly caught McCartney and groupie, Francie Schwartz in bed together. He shot up heroin in the early 70s while a dad.
George Harrison cheated on his wife, Pattie Boyd. According to engineer, Phil McDonald, in his book, Here, There, and Everywhere he was the nastiest of all the Beatles when working in the studio. He was littered with hypocrisies as he lived in a 120-room mansion yet preached about the dangers of “living in the material world”. He also had an affair with Ringo’s wife, Maureen Starkey.
Ringo Starr didn’t really partake in too much debauchery as the previous three. He did partake in the Donald Trump trait of cheating here and there but I think that’s about it.
Couldn’t you easily see a liberal calling all of these traits very “Trumpian”?
Either way, it sounds to me like The Beatles did share sexual habits and hypocrisies much like Trump. Is anyone really holier-than-thou? Are we really all that different from one another? That’s a question identity politics seems to never consider along with the possibility of reconciling music and politics.
Were The Beatles also always about peace and love in their music? In the early days, they played mainly straight rock ‘n’ roll and pop but once they progressed a dark provocative side came out. The most provocative being, “Run For Your Life” from Rubber Soul where Lennon sings of killing a “little girl” if she gets the idea of pursuing other men. “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” from Abbey Road is about a man who smacks people over the head with a hammer. “Happiness Is A Warm Gun” from The White Album is about a man who finds solace in firing his gun.
Of course, The Beatles didn’t advocate what they wrote about always as their overall artistic sense of life was positive and in many ways about peace and love. They closed a generation gap and brought musicians together from many genres. In fact, it’s even said their music helped end The Soviet Union. They are, in effect, more about peace and love than any politician I can think of.
At the end of the day, The Beatles’ music is very much a counter to the garbage expressed in this meme. Their music was about finding what people have in common and bringing them together. The current two-party identity politics system doesn’t allow for that. It’s all about finding differences, getting rid of peaceful discourse, and then starting a civil war. This meme reeks of that and the liberal Beatles fan who created it might want to re-listen to their catalogue and feel and hear what these four men had to say.
Postmodernism spreads cancer wherever it seems to be found. Art is no exception. It’s crusade against the mind and human spirit has resulted in the destruction of objectivity. Stupidity is upheld over reason and ugly is upheld over beauty.
Wherever the mind seems to be at work, postmodernists are there to stop its functioning. The most recent foray into postmodernist art involves an “installation” (an art synonym for bullshit) which exhibits a banana taped to a wall. This “installation” has sold for $240,000. No, not for just one banana. That’d be ridiculous. Three “proofs” were sold – each $120,000 a piece. One of the clients has since eaten theirs. A second has just been sold for $150,000. This is not my attempt at Monty Python-esque humor by the way.
Another has also been eaten by a New York City “performance” artist straight from the museum’s wall (see previous link). I’ve always said that postmodernist art is art laundering and now it seems to have crossed over into money laundering. Period blood, turd sculptures, collecting urine, a gold toilet, and now a banana. This is what an important medium of mankind has become?
This banal stupidity is an example of the ultimate end of a near century of postmodernist art. Can this be topped? Is it a hoax?
Although there has been outrage and heavy criticism of this postmodernist crime, most critics have unknowingly digested the form of reasoning that postmodernists use when it comes to judging art from rotten bananas.
Postmodernism dictates that things are unknowable and that it’s best to let people be driven by whims rather than by reason. No objective truths exist they’ll claim without a trace of irony. In defense of such works, many will retort with, “Art can be anything. It’s not up to you to decide what it can and cannot be.” Anything grounded in objectivity is deemed oppressive and dubiously traditional. This therefore, justifies their naive and mindless teenaged revolt.
Forget even their opinion on what constitutes as art, this is an intellectually dishonest way of making an argument. On a surface level, it’s a cop out. It’s a toddler’s attempt at staging an argumentative hit and run only to have their exit interrupted by a brick wall (i.e., reality).
At best, it’s an embarrassing attempt at absolving them of making a further argument and for their point to go unchallenged. In order for something to mean anything it has to be objective. Art is a form of stylized communication. It’s objective is convey a feeling or an idea. It has to be structured by composition and skill.
If splatters of paint by itself is art than groaning is a language.
Since postmodernism has dictated that rebelling against the “status-quo” is to rebel against “oppressive restraints” most will view my stance as tyrannical. Who am I to judge what is art and what isn’t?
I’m close to a nobody after all. That being said, my judgement is about the concept of art; what is art? It’s not about artistic vision. It should be put art has to fall under objective parameters but it’s no one’s “right” to say what someone else’s vision should be.
Referring back to my language analogy, I don’t advocate for controlling what others say but it can be judged whether or not it’s being said in an actual language.
In the end, postmodernist “installations” or “concept art” is disposable unlike skill as the eaten banana has since been replaced.
First Amendment Safe Space 