Your browser version is outdated. We recommend that you update your browser to the latest version.

Another Look at Abraham Lincoln

by D Jason Cooper

Abraham Lincoln

You hear it once in a while, how Lincoln didn't care about slaves. They will quote his letter where he says, explicitly, that he was there to preserve the union. If he could do so without freeing one slave he would, and if he could preserve it and free all the slaves, he would. This is, of course, proof of his perfidy.

No it isn't.

His violation of the Constitution, suspension of Habeas Corpus, arbitrary arrest of people who'd done nothing other than disagree with him (like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), declaration of war without Congressional approval, arrest of the entire Maryland state legislature and holding them without trial, and organizing war crimes against citizens of the southern states (whites and blacks) including but not limited to theft, assault, rape, and murder. But his stance of slavery is just in strict keeping with one particular stream of the party to which he belonged. It is not a stream which still exists, and that is probably why people forget to mention it.

Lincoln is the only minor party (the American term is third party) Presidential candidate to win. That alone should tell you how fluid things were at the time.

It started with a split in the Democrats. Some Democrats in New York could not accept the pro-slavery stance of the party so they marched out of a meeting in Buffalo, New York. They were called Barnburners by the press, because they could bring down the Democratic Party's political hegemony. Spoiler warning: they did.

Barn Burners

Within that group was a strain of economic modernization, for example, wanting tariffs to raise funds, not provide protectionism. (There was no Income Tax, yet.)

Separately, slavery was developing reaction from the ground up. Apart from religious movements (e.g. Quakers and other denominations objected) there were other parties forming.

And dying. The Whig Party, with a couple Presidents to their credit, emphasized a stand against slavery.

Whig meeting

The Whigs themselves were formed by a merger of the National Republicans, the Anti-Masonic Party, and whatever Federalists were still alive. They has come a cropper on slavery, splitting. It was the anti-slavery faction, the Conscience Whigs, who got the moral upper hand in the party.

They also lost so many members that their vote dropped significantly. Note that this party was recreated and exists today.

From the ground up came the Libertarian Party, who opposed slavery everywhere and every way. They formed in Warsaw, New York in 1840. They have in a sense been reincarnated as the current Libertarian Party. Their uncompromising stance was for freedom.

Liberty Party

Along came the other grass roots party which opposed slavery and did so by going the minimalist route. They believed all you had to do was contain slavery to where it existed. If you did that, it would die out.

I don't believe this theory for a second but I live after Ford and his moving production line.

The Free Soilers were born from the question of whether new territories should allow slavery. They said no and thought they were blocking the path for its survival. Slavery would be starved out and die.

They believed slavery demeaned wage work.

Free Soiler

They ran on a slogan of "free soil, free labor, free speech, and free men." They got 10% of the vote in the Presidential election of 1848 but about 5% of the vote in 1848. Their real mark was they got a fair number of members of the House of Representatives and a few in the Senate (maximum of 4 in a Senate of 62 members).

Free Soil ticket

But they did not propose to free one slave. Slave owners were their members (like in Missouri). Again, they did not want to free slaves, not one. They thought if they restricted it to its current area it would die out. They did this entirely from an economic argument.

It was the combined organizations and stray members of the Democrat Barnburners, Conscience Whigs, Know Nothings/American Party, Federalists, Libertarian Party, and Free Soil Party who got together and formed the Republican Party. This was a series of meetings but the only one remembered was in Wisconsin (the first was, again, in upstate New York).

Through all the Consience Whigs, Barnburners, Liberty Party, and Free-Soil Party there was an awareness they were a northern grouping, and being a northern party was part of what they were trying to build.

At their first Presidential election, if the Republicans had also won Pennsylvania and Indiana they would have won the election. The next time around, 1860. Democrats were saying in the Republicans they would start a civil war which they did.

Faced with this war and all the divisions of parties, with Presidents unable to get popular vote majorities (like in 1856 and 1860), he went for the compromise of the slavery position still within the ideas of the Republicans. In other words, the Free-Soil Party belief that it just had to be contained. He would not free one slave, which sounds a lot different when you realize he thought if he did this he would have already won. They would be free and he didn't have to take a stance that ordered change.

After all, every time people tried to move forward against slavery (and a number of other issues in the recent past) the group splintered. Look at the Democrats and the Whigs split. The whole United States splintered on it.

Lincoln must have been desperate to keep his forces together. As much as the north could be called 'together.' He didn't want it to split further so when dealing with the most divisive issue to hand, he chose the policy that was designed to broaden appeal - broader than the Liberty Party's, at any rate. Stick to that because people couldn't object. Hold it in and let it die and don't divide over the issue now.

So the whole matter was seeing a vast array of problems and focusing on one above all others, and seeking to contain another and finish it off.

Not an uncommon tactic, but it's never popular, either.

(c) D Jason Cooper

 

Laws Superheroes Need

 

by D Jason Cooper

 

Matt Murdoch lawyerl

 

 

 

If superheroes really existed some laws would have to be changed. I’m not talking about making it legal for them to do a break-and-enter when they need to or making it acceptable to commit assault or murder. No, I’m talking about basic things which would face anyone.

 

1. Trademark

 

Super heroes have secret identities. And they are famous. So how do they trademark their names? Or can anyone just trademark ‘Batman’ and start making chocolate-coated lard bars called ‘Batman bars’? What about Bat-Whiskey?

 

Supermanfoods.jpg

 

If there is a well-known name it gets used by no talents trying to do you wrong to make them some money. Look at big-budget reboots like Star Trek. Everyone complains how they are not Star Trek films.

 

They were never meant to be. The studio is only after the name. That draws in fans of the original series and movies and makes money.

 

Somebody would want to use a superhero's name on their product to make more money. To avoid the damage that could do (like when it pisses off the Hulk) it would have to be legislated the names and likenesses of superheroes could not be used for commercial products.

 

But it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone decided to make a snack called Joker Bits. What would the Joker do? By which I mean, how would the Joker torture and kill the manufacturer unless Batman could stop him? Don’t forget when he tried to patent fish.

 

2. Speed and flight

 

You cannot fly your plane or anything which can fly while carrying a person down the street or too close over houses. You cannot fly between skyscrapers. Superheroes who fly would probably need a dispensation from that since flying that close is part of what they do. It is not the same as small drones (which have their own laws), it is a person who can crash and die or kill others. But for superheroes to protect the public it will mean they will have to fly low and not have cops shoot at them as they do.

 

Silver Streak

 

The same thing applies to running. The Flash, Jessie Quick, the Whizzer, Quikcsilver and all the other speedsters cannot be made to stick to the speed limit. Their job is to get to the place where they are needed as fast as possible. But if they run faster that 55 miles an hour anywhere in the United States, you’ll get a speeding fine.

 

You’ll also get demerits but I don’t know on what. You’re not driving so it shouldn’t affect your license, but they surely can’t suspend you from walking.

 

If superheroes were real, there woulld have to be permission to run and fly as needed.

 

3. Weapons would have to be redefined

 

There is a lot of talk about guns: registering them, keeping them secure, limiting the size of their magazines, and keeping ammunition just as closely guarded. The problem with this is it totally forgets things like bows and arrows, slings and bullets (yes, bullet originally meant those little stones slings threw), and similar things.

 

Green Lantern ring

 

With superheroes there are obvious questions of armor, power rings, shields, and (surprise) bow and arrows. There is no reason to forget that Green Arrow and Hawkeye have a bow and arrows just like a weekend hunter except for the explosives, gas and other devices the arrows have. Remember, explosives and gasses usually have to be licensed.

 

So, what would government do? I think it could simply order that there not be duplicates of these things made. You can have Iron Man, you can’t have all the other armored characters like Iron Patriot or War Machine without the permission of the government.

 

You can have Green Arrow or Hawkeye but they cannot give their tricked arrows to other people. There can be other archer heroes, but they will use ordinary arrows – giving us the chance to see them develop those arrows as time goes on.

 

In other words, the government just applies the rules it already has regarding guns and military hardware to other weapons. You can’t just build guns – if you’re thinking of 3-D printing, if the guns work it’s illegal – nor can you build fighter jets.

 

So the government just has to be told of any new power rings or other extraordinary weapons (so John Stewart’s still in there).

 

4. Make it legal to wear masks and have an alternative identities

 

Yes, it’s actually illegal to go about the street in a mask. That often includes a motorbike helmet, particularly when entering a bank. And some things are given a bit of leeway, and most people think of a burka but there’s also a hood and scarf which disguises the face and is not out of place in the cold. From about Pennsylvania north this mask is OK – in winter. But try it in summer or Australia and cops will stop you to talk about what the hell you think you’re doing.

 

Batgirl cowl

 

But if you walk down the street in a cowl or a domino mask or anything like that and a cop will take it off you. If you refuse to take it off, you get hauled down to the station.

 

Real life superheroes would need the legal right to keep masks on to disguise their identity. But they also have to be able to rightfully give a false identity if that false identity is traceable.

 

“I’m Batman.”

 

That’s not good enough. It’s a false name. You get arrested for that. But law would have to change such that if you have an alternate identity which can be traced even if it isn’t correct it is legit. So if you pull over Miley Cyrus and she says she’s Miley Cyrus, what would be OK even though that isn’t her legal name. If Mark Calloway should tell a cop he’s the Undertaker, fine. And if Batman, Superman, Spider Man, or Captain America should give that as their names, that would be fine under this law.

 

If there were superheroes, there would be a lot of aspects of life that would have to change. I’ve avoided things like insurance law (excluded events would be closely legislated) but there are things we take for granted which would have change. And if we look at them, they might illustrate legal issues.

 

 

How Many Books for a Civilization?

By D Jason Cooper

How many books must be in the minds of the population to make a civilization? This questions has been hovering around history but has not been asked in quite this form. After all, we are told the Greek and Roman myths underlay the classical civilization. They were replaced with the Bible of Christianity and with it other books which built on the symbolism of Christianity which was very different from the previous classical symbolism.

Bible

More recently, Das Kapital was hailed as the book of a new civilization. It still underlies much of the leftist elite but does so indirectly. People don’t read it the way they read the Bible or the myths of the classical civilization.

Das Kapital

But books which are pure fiction (and agreed at the time to be so) can also be part of this process. Nobody in ancient China thought the novels Monkey was nonfiction. On the other hand, the Orchid Pavilion was an account of a place and philosophical ideas. But each underscored the Chinese civilization.

Through history, although we talk about the impact of novels or nonfiction works we do not calculate from when til when the books of those ideas formed part of the corpus of the civilizations. What books house the ideas which make us who we are?

The Origin of Species changed the course of Western civilization, but the impact of the book itself was fairly short. Its ideas became part of the backdrop of life as it became superseded. The Bible may still have a place in society but that place is far less powerful than it once was.

Origin of Species.jpg

But how many slots does a society have for books: novels and non-fiction alike? It seems to take more than one because very quickly a single book suffers a single interpretation. Society becomes closed in. This came to the fore in the end of the Medieval Ages. Prior to that there was the Bible but also works by Dionesius the Aeropagite who, unfortunately for Christianity, turned out to be a Pagan named Plotinus.

But too many works diffuses a civilization and it breaks apart. Indeed, too much division in books leads to a contest only one side of which can win. There were the myths of classical civilization versus the gospels which were originally diverse letters of short length and specific topics. It was Marcion who put them together into a Bible which was much shorter than the current version. But by then, the main fight was already over.

How many works? More than one, but less that 17 because, mathematically, that is the highest number you can have and still have a grouping without factions. If you have 18, then there will be factions and social science and mathematics agree on that. 2 to 17. That’s the limit of civilization.

But two seems too few and seventeen seems to many. What example of either extreme can we call up from history? None in either case. But if we look at the most pressing case, today, we cannot call up many books at all which fill fundamental slots.

How many books can you quote or site and expect other people to know what book you’re referring to? If you say, “I know the pangs of love!” would you expect people to know the references from The Book of Shadows? If you said, “Jesus wept,” you would be surprised if someone else didn’t have some vague idea what you were talking about, though you might not know certain elements like that is the shorted verse in the Bible. The Bible, on that basis is part to corpus of this civilization.

That can change. Some books can be added, others deleted from that corpus. But how many books can you expect the bulk of the population to recognize the ideas of? Behind that, how many books would make it wholly your civilization? Strangely enough, probably seven.

By that I mean people can absorb at maximum seven books. There is an esoteric reason for this: the seven classical planets. But I don’t see how various books can be ascribed to individual planets. That may happen: Sun Tzu The Art of War of Clausewitz’s On War would take the position of Mars and both filled that slot in their respective civilizations. On War still fills that position in this civilization. Without knowing that book, one is not part of the warfare of this civilization. But a check does not reveal each slot being filled, nor does it show books which are the common ground of civilization filling such slots.

And this does not take into account the need for books to fill several needs each or they can be absorbed and put aside. Das Kapital has lasted a while, but it basically got cornered when society ceased to be so based in industry. Marxism never adjusted to the post industrial society. It exists as an ancestral text, hanging on as fundamental but still declining in force (and on that basis I would say the left is heading to another fall).

What are the texts of this civilization? It all comes down to that, does it not? Easy to say, arguing it all out would take more time.

The Bible: you know who Jesus the Son of God is? Have some idea what he preached? Yes, you do. Even if you want to deny it, you do. You know about turning the other cheek, you know about the crucifixion and that people who are innocent may suffer and we expect a result out of that.

On War.jpg

On War: the tactics of war that we still use are encompassed in this book. Many of them are based on history, you’ll find Hannibal in there. The tactics not in that book we do not accept. Logically, I cannot see why, but culturally, I can agree with it.

Potter Books

The whole Harry Potter series. Pretty well anything in that series (yes, I’m collecting them up but you can count them as 7 books in all if you want) and you can expect people to understand the reference. You can be surprised if they don’t get the reference.

Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings. Ring in the crack of Mt Doom? My precious? The Shire. Saruman. “They shall not pass!” I’m surprised Libre Office doesn’t have a spelling for Saruman in its spelling dictionary.

Any nonfiction books? Not really. Science is no longer trustworthy enough for all sides to say this is the fact. For me, I would add Gauquelin’s works on astrology, since he has statistically proved there is something there and the existing society just won’t accept the reality of the statistics and methods they would have accepted if he’d there was nothing to iut.

In the same way, the books there there is global warming have violated principles of science and want to be included in the canon by force. Yes, social pressure, boycott, and violence.

There is very little which is the literary center of this society. People are increasingly fighting over what can be considered the center of the civilzation. You’d best start believing in the end of the world, this is it.

© D Jason Cooper 2018

 

The Japanese and Us and Fiction

by D Jason Cooper

The Japanese culture has two principles which make it different from the West in all other ways. There is a dedication to leadership and a drive to excellence. Neither of these apply in the West and the West is reaping its own crop from that fact. Let’s take a little closer look.

Japanese Tokyo

They are of our species, not of our culture, and we don't know where the line between them is

The Japanese are a hierarchical society. Every person owes deference to those above them, but not to those beside or below them. By doing that the society is bound together. Those few who do not accept the people above them are excluded from society as a whole. The Japanese believe decisions should be made be the people at the top of the pyramid.

Animal House

Rag-tag misfits will always win out in Hollywood movies

They also believe in doing the best at whatever it is they do in life. To muddle through and be unsatisfied at death is not an ideal they hold up for all to see. The urge is to be the very best at what they can be, no matter what level of the hierarchy they are in.

As a result of these two things, Japanese stories are different from Western ones, particularly Hollywood which is the epitome of what Hollywood tells the West it wants to believe about itself.

Western stories are largely about screw-ups learning how to come good and then doing so. The rag-tag anything wins out over neatly pressed well funded anything whatsoever. The rag-tag rebellion beats the Empire, the rag-tag amateur baseball team beats the professional one. The frat house of poor boys out does the frat house of rich ones. The sorority house of poor girls outdoes the sorority house of rich ones.

It’s always that the misfits, who don’t fit into the hierarchy, are the ones who turn over the established order. So, how well does that work in real life? If you suffer for decades like the sexually abused (women and men, don’t forget that) of Hollywood, the old order might be overturned.

How often? Very rarely.

Anime Samurai

In Anime, Samurai can be female and completely feminine, it's not edgy or new in Japan like it is in Hollywood, it's a standard

On the other hand, how often does the top of a hierarchy turn over? Comparatively, lots. There is a continuing change of the people at the top of a hierarchy and, let’s face it, the people who get to the top are usually the ones who succeed those who wanted to get them somewhere.

In other words, in Japanese fiction there isn’t the rag-tag winners. The poor guy doesn’t get the rich girl. The character leaves the hierarchy but the hierarchy is still there. If the hierarchy is gone is a post-apocalyptic story.

In other words, there isn’t a Western character arc. Characters come in, overcome opposition in the most spectacular way yet, and then the story ends.

In the West, the character must show up with flaws, things they have to overcome in themselves before they can overcome what’s before them. In fact how-to-write books tell you that having a character without flaws creates a shallow character.

Constantine

Sometimes I think Western stories are just trying to see just how flawed they can make a lead and still get away with it - this is John Constantine

No word yet on if they’re apologizing to Japan for insulting their culture’s literature.

When a character leaves a hierarchy we basically don’t see that. We see after they have left, when they are alone. On fact they are solitary. It doesn’t matter what skills they have, they can be incredibly skilled and they can enter into the area with those skills.

In other words, welcome to the Samurai stories. The Samurai is Ronin, alone, and will come to an isolated town or even an area of a city. They will be presented with some warlord or criminal controlling the lives of their victims and exploiting them for money, sex, or torture.

There will be an initial battle. The Ronin will take a meal in a quiet moment in the story. Someone will ask them a question, usually about what will happen now, and the Ronin says something wise. It can be something about humility, some lesson on tactics and strategy too abstract to be applied before the actual events in the story.

Samurai fighting

So the fight is early which means the struggle isn't over

The Ronin then goes off and in a series of combats of increasing force, the Ronin defeats the war or crime lord. Then the Ronin goes off, leaving the people behind. The Ronin does not decide it’s their turn to be the war or crime lord. The Ronin doesn’t take over the place, they move on.

The Ronin has no real backstory, other than abilities and skills they acquired. But this is unimportant inasmuch as they prove their skills by the introductory battle where they win, usually with significant ease.

By comparison, a Western hero would come flawed, haunted by some past events which they have to face and a new set of skills which they have to learn. The bulk of the story would be learning those skills, facing those demons interspersed with less important battles until skills, reconstructed self, and some secret about the main villain came together for a great victory of the hero who began as an outsider.

Freud

His psychology does not work and is based on falsehoods, but he has

taken over Hollywood and through it far too many of our stories

That is, the story of Hollywood movies is the story of Freudian analysis. Problem comes up, talk about it, learn what’s holding you back, establish new ways of doing thing, and wind up with some great discovery about the person who gave you problems in the first place. Then the patient gets Freudianly better and goes off to a healthy life.

The Japanese determine to make the most of whatever they do. So the Samurai who comes as a Ronin has practiced to perfect their craft. That perfection, that concern for precision, means they have the skills they need.

The Western hero begins as a bit of a joke. They don’t know what they need to if they are to succeed. So they learn just enough to win and then come out battered and exhausted. That way there is a dramatic end in which readers or viewers don’t know if the hero is going to win. But if the hero perfected their skills they’d win easily. If they are to nearly fail, give them less time and increase the pace of the story, or provide a stronger antagonist.

So, as often happens, the story is wrapped around presumptions that almost no one notices exists. Once we look at the underlying causes the differences in the stories of the two cultures.

© D Jason Cooper

 

 I Hate Porgs

 

by D Jason Cooper

 

 Before The Last Jedi came out I never knew I hate Porgs. But I do. They are disgusting things, and they would be disgusting even if they were real lifeforms. And I am not the only one. People all over the world are united by littler more than a justified, honest, and admirable hatred of Porgs. In fact, many are united in this was without realizing it. I, personally, hate them because they deserve to be hated, here are just a few reasons why this is so.

 

 PorgPorg

 

 Porgs are a lie. Disney has told us they used Porgs to cover up the existence of Puffins on the island where they filmed scenes. Are you saying it’s easier to CGI and animate Porgs than to just take two frames from the same shot and remove the puffins by replacing them with the background? You’d rather Make Porgs which have to be superimposed over every Puffin in the background? Can you show us the raw footage so the net can see if every Porg you make covers a Puffin? Thought not.

PuffinPuffin

 

Puffins are better than Porgs, anyways. A black and white bird that suddenly has a white face and a brightly colored, patterned beak. This is something people who make up alien species tend not to do, have just a touch of color. Look at the salt foxes, the amphibian caretakers, the lama-horses: true, larger animals tend more to be monocolored but there are cobras, giraffes, green anacondas, killer whales, tigers, skewbald horses, octopods and others who are multicolored.

 

Time after time, though, creators of alien species tend to simple and often boring patterns – like that thing Luke Skywalker milks. Gray, which is not what most sea-dwelling creatures have as a coloring. To survive they tend to have light colored bellies and dark backs. Like Porgs, who are imitated from penguins. And when we get to penguins, let’s not forget:

 

 Royal PenguinsRoyal Penguins

 

 Porgs are there to cover up Puffins? Then why did you let Puffins into the Millenium Falcon? Why did you let them onto salt-Hoth? They are there to do more than cover up Puffins or you would not have included them where no Puffin would be.

 

What did the amphibian caretakers, Vulptexes (salt foxes), and Fathiers (racing lamas).

 

 Still PorgStill Porg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The design stinks. These are sea dwelling ‘birds’ with teeth. Birds don’t have teeth because they are a generally bad idea because they are very heavy for something that wants to fly. The teeth of the ultra-cute Porgs are all canine. These things eat meat. That giraffe sea-cow Luke milks? When they die these things probably rip its corpse to pieces.

 

They have noses which are mammalian and don’t seem to be able to be able to close. When swimming, the nostrils would be pointing in the same direction as swimming. They would fill with water.

 

These things would be extinct almost immediately. I that incompetence that’s that universal.

 

They’re meant to be so cute. They have big eyes and child-like proportions to its face. Well, Disney created the rules for a ‘cute’ character by borrowing body proportions from a small child. What you have here is something with the small size, large eyes, small mouth, and truncated limbs of a small child. You must have thought that would make it cute. It’s not cute, it’s a little predator. All those child-like characters under Banks – they didn’t have fangs for teeth.

 

They add nothing to the story. Take Porgs out of The Last Jedi and what change does that make to the plot or to character development? None.

 

Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

 

They offer less than those amphibian caretakers, the salt foxes, or those racing lama-things. And you could get rid of them all without harming the story in the least. These are, like Porgs, put in there to make for merchandise.

 

 Porg MerchandisePorg Merchandise

 

 Why is there so much bad merchandise of these things? It’s not just that there is lots of merchandise, it’s that it’s cheesy, ugly, and useless. Apparently it doesn’t sell. Last Jedi merchandise is generally not selling. Even action figures the major supporting character of the movie, Rey, is not selling. Porg stuff isn’t selling, either.

 

But still it all gets pumped out. Let’s be clear, no one in the universe needs an ugly Porg mug or the world’s ugliest dress or all kinds of little Porg dolls that look like they’re in distress. They’re not getting any sympathy.

 

 Jar Jar BinksJar Jar Binks

 

 The mature form of Porgs. No, seriously, what is it about Star Wars films that everything in the water is stupid or silly? Jar-Jar Binks and Boss Nass are both silly. The Gungans are basically an earlier form of Porgs.

 

There are other sea creatures, but they’re all dim-witted monsters which try to eat the Jedi but get eaten by even bigger monsters.

(c) D Jason Cooper 2018

 

 

 

THE LAST JEDI

 

 

I may seem to be joining the crowd, here, but The Last Jedi is a terrible movie and it was made by bad people. The telling point for the latter point is the different ways that the makers react to criticism from the public in the West and China.

In the United States and its friends, when people said the movie was terrible, the response was swift and aggressive. Every time the Disney company and its dominated reviewers announced new explanations of why the movie's well-written. If they don't accept the word of Disney, they are told to see the movie again or to just stay away.

This means that the movie cannot communicate most of its message in one viewing. It's like those theories that Jar-Jar Binks was a secret Sith and could see that if you just watched movies multiple times at different speeds and frequently backwards. You now have to watch the movie multiple times to get the basic message of it, and you have to pay for each of those times.

If you question whether the movie is competently made, if you point out the flaws of the movie, and if you do not want to see the movie multiple times, then go away. There is no questioning of Disney, there is no criticism of Disney allowed.

And then comes China. Disney put the movie in China and it didn't sell. Did Disney tell them to see the movie twice to see how brilliant it is? No. Did they say go away? No. But China did leave.

Did Disney arrogantly attack the Chinese? No.

What Disney did was go begging, a begging that itself went begging. China wasn't listening and wasn't giving extra chances. China told them to pack their bags and get out.

Basically, The Last Jedi is a load of SJW and China doesn't support that ideology. Neither the government nor the people want to hear how terrible heterosexuality, males, and Caucasians are. They want to see an adventure: individuals who deal with danger without also being a propaganda piece.

Interesting, China doesn't like yet another wave of propaganda.

In the West, reviewers have a much higher opinion of The Last Jedi than the audience. This has been an increasing pattern with movies of late. If reviewers want to be let into the next movie and have access to stars for interviews they will say this movie is terrific. And most of them do.

In the same way, small companies don't make enough movies for them to hold the same threat over the reviewers' heads. If The Last Jedi had been made by a small studio make no mistake, reviewers would hate it.

It the same way, the accusation that major studios pay for good reviews is ridiculous. It's a paranoid delusion on your part. But what about the parties where people who can vote on the Academy Awards (including reviewers) are brought together, fed, given access to stars, and given party bags. These bags include $300 bottles of perfumes, Rolex watches, and the like. It's why major studios monopolize the Academy Awards. Miramax (founded by Harvey Weinstein) made an art form out of this. But it proves that studios will pay reviewers and do in fact expect results for the material payments they make.

China isn't interested. So Disney can't do that. They can't bully, and they can't pay off. They have no leverage and, in the end, they fold.

The same thing will happen eventually here. Disney and other studios will find people stop going to movies because they don't want to support people who abuse them. In other words, the current trend will continue. People will stop going, bit by bit, and theaters will close. It will not just be the quality of the movies, the studios will have destroyed the relationship with their customers because they thought they had the customers trapped.

 

(c) D Jason Cooper 2018

 

THE FRILLED SHARK

Frilled SharkFrilled Shark

 

The picture above is a frilled shark, a kind of shark that lived in the era of the dinosaurs. We don't know how many are in its population - not even if we try 'about' as a safety line. We think the teeth are designed to bite soft-bodied prey like squid and various fish. We think.

The latest example was caught by accident in survey nets off Portugal. The EU trying to find what's there and how much money they can make out of it. It was caught from about 1000 feet down.

The shark has a long, snake-like body and a head like a snake.

Scientists being so superior to us say this is where sailors may have gotten the idea of sea serpents.

So something that has a head that looks like a snake followed by a body that looks like a snake's 'gave the idea' of a sea serpent. S sea serpent is something which has a serpent's head followed by a serpent's body.

The real reason it's put that way is because Scientism has to say the people were wrong. They spent generations saying there was no such thing as a sea serpent. Then this thing shows up and they can't admit they were wrong. So they had to pin it down to words.

They call it something different so they can pretend they were first. That is more important to them than actually living up to the facts.

It happens again and again because they are science woke and all of us are ignorant and stupid. We don't know what they, the superior ones do.

So, science gave us the airplane - no, wait, the airplane came from two bicycle makers.

But science gave us the steam engine - no, wait, the steam engine was in general use for about 20 years before science worked out its principles.

But science gave us the study of the stars - no, astrology did that.

But science gave us the aspirin - no, you took that from Native Americans.

But science taught us to take aspirin to thin the blood - no, that came from professional wrestling where is was used to make small cut bleed a lot.

But science denied the sea serpent and the kraken and both of them were then discovered and science never gave the apology they still owe the rest of the world.

Giant squidGiant squid

 

Frilled SharkFrilled Shark

Science told you they're not real, and you are not allowed to disagree.

 

(c) D Jason Cooper 2017