Star Wars For The Splitting Soul Of America

Via GEFIRA,

The last episode of the successful movie – Star Wars – is actually a lot less about the stars in space and much more about culture and class. Most importantly, it reflects the dangerously growing disenfranchisement of the race-and-gender obsessed liberal upper class and everyone else.

The movie finally came out, the money started flowing and eventually the reviews arrived. The result? On the primary review sites Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes the critics loved it, the public did not, which left many wondering why.

Some explanations came out already: the good results are scientific, the bad ones are there because of internet trolls.Nope, there’s nothing scientific about subjective opinions, even if they (allegedly) represent the majority of those who express them. Science is, or should be, objective.

Trolls, more trolls, and finally, Russian interference.

That’s the cue to solving the enigma of the different ratings: the standard profile of the movie critic is a liberal arts graduate, easily identifiable by the verbosity of his writing and by the fact that he is easily impressed by cheap virtue-signalling elements like token ethnic minority leading characters and a strong female lead. As the movie panders (not even that much to be fair) to his ideological preferences, he gives high scores based on diversity and equality. The average-movie goer probably doesn’t care too much about politics. In a country where a “decisive’’ election like the last one, turnout is 55%, the biggest party by far is the one of those who stay at home. In comparison, in Europe important electoral dates easily get an 80% turnout.

So if the audience isn’t into politics, they might not care about the significance of a strong and independent woman outmanoeuvring a straight white male, the evil of mankind, in a duel with lightsabers to eradicate toxic masculinity⁴⁾.The non-politically biased movie goer wants a nice plot with unpredictable twists, satisfactory fight scenes, and some throwbacks to past episodes; and he didn’t get that. The plot falls flat.

Then there’s the other side of the political spectrum, the underclass who are simply fed up with the increasingly totalitarian tendencies of identity politics by the “liberal” Left and their constant attempts to shove their political beliefs down everyone’s throat. The new fad of the liberal elite, diversity, is being rejected like a bad transplant by the public. Nonetheless, it’s being pursued relentlessly and obnoxiously. The politicization of sports is already causing a haemorrhage of viewers for the NFL (the US football organization). Entertainment is also not immune to these attempts. The calls for the “diversification” of cast actors are regular.

The last two groups represent the “user score” and their review isn’t positive. The most interesting point, however, is another; it’s the reaction of critics to the public having a diverse (the irony!) opinion. That’s where the accusations of trolling or Russian meddling start, but they also reveal the insecurity of critics and especially, their inability to handle an opposite opinion. Just like the liberal political elite can’t accept that the world Obama built in the last 8 years received a negative review by the voters, who opted for the radical (in theory) change by electing Donald Trump, the liberal movie critic can’t accept a negative review of a work that reflects his ideological preference.

We might be seeing now the impact of those infamous participation trophies on the minds of the new generations: they don’t know how to accept defeat, nor any negativity whatsoever. They grew up being told that “everyone is special in their own way”, then Facebook arrived, allowing only likes but not dislikes contributing to the creation of a mindset where negativity is not allowed.

If there is negativity, then it must be from some malign agent… from Russia. One year ago, in one of our articles Russia did it ⁵⁾we spotted a trend: every political shortcoming of the Western elite would be blamed on Russia. We were right as the cases of alleged Russian interference have expanded from Trump and Brexit to the Italian referendum last year, and according to Joe Biden⁶⁾also the rise (and fall) of Marine Le Pen in the French elections and most recently the Green US politician Jill Stein, which may rank as the most hilarious cases of paranoia.

It turns out, however, that the Russian scapegoating is expanding outside the traditional boundaries of politics, as everything becomes increasingly politicized. Hence, even negative reviews of the Star Wars latest movie are now a result of the Russian sabotage.

As millennials, the generation that was put in a bubble protected from negativity by educators and social media and thus unable to handle it, are now fully settling in the job market, the prospect isn’t promising. If you think that’s bad, remember that the new cohorts in college campuses are now fighting to suppress free speech on the basis that it might offend someone’s feelings. Last year we concluded “expect to see more”. This time, expect to see worse.

A Sheriff Just Threatened Charges Over ‘Fuck Trump’ Sticker — and the Internet Is Destroying Him

(ANTIMEDIA) A Texas sheriff is under fire for making a Facebook post about his intention to take punitive measures against a truck driver displaying a bumper sticker declaring “FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM.”

On Wednesday morning, Sheriff Troy E. Nehls of Fort Bend County, Texas, posted a picture of the back of a truck asking members of the community to help him find the ‘offender.’

“I have received numerous calls regarding the offensive display on this truck as it is often seen along FM 359. If you know who owns this truck or it is yours, I would like to discuss it with you,” he said.

Nehls apparently already sought to impose punishment, adding, “Our Prosecutor has informed us she would accept Disorderly Conduct charges regarding it, but I feel we could come to an agreement regarding a modification to it.”

He also posted a picture in the comments of legal code concerning disorderly conduct, apparently attempting to justify his attempt to suppress free speech by suggesting the truck driver was instigating a breach of the peace.

The statute, Sec. 42.01, says “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly uses abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” or if it “makes an offensive gesture of display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

Attempting to cite this statute suggests Trump supporters could be so triggered by free speech about the president they might incite violence, a particularly hilarious notion considering the right has spent months virtue signaling about the first amendment and scolding leftists for being violent snowflakes.

And the Internet responded swiftly as thousands of commenters flowed in offering relentless trolling, thoughtful defenses of free speech, and cutting rebukes of partisan hypocrisy. The trolls were numerous:

Other commenters were straightforward and to the point, citing previous court decisions and defenses of free speech:

Still others tackled partisan hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance:

Some commenters defended the sheriff and received immediate responses:

A couple  pointed out the fact that people actually called the police because they were so offended:

The truck driver also received an offer from a lawyer and former prosecutor for free legal assistance:

The ACLU of Texas also chimed in:

“Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, Constitutional Law 101: You can’t ban speech just because it has ‘f@ck’ in it.

“Hey truck owner, feel free to contact the ACLU of Texas.”

Sheriff Troy E. Nehls, Constitutional Law 101: You cant ban speech just because it has f@ck in it.Hey truck owner, feel free to contact the ACLU of Texas.

Posted by ACLU of Texas on Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Kellyann Conway Eaten Alive by Trolls After Turning Herself into a Meme

(ANTIMEDIA Op-Ed) In what some are calling a deft PR move intended to distract from this week’s episode of Russaigate, Kellyann Conway sparked a social media frenzy after she appeared on Fox News with two pieces of white paper. Though the text on the pages attempted to dismiss this week’s flurry of claims the Trump campaign did, in fact, collude with Russia to elect the president, they were easily photoshopped.

Just as the internet ran with Trump’s decision to hold up pieces of paper upon signing an executive order earlier this year, social media users quickly altered the images to mock the senior adviser to the president.

Here’s the original:

And here’s what happened when the trolls feasted on it:

#kellycards Tweets

Some poked fun at her infamous statements about “alternative facts”:

Some mocked her job altogether:

Others were just silly:

Others went the pop culture route, citing well-known films:

Predictably, many of the photoshops focused on Russia:

Unfortunately, while some of the memes were funny, many simply revealed Americans’ hopeless attachment to the two-party system despite decades of evidence proving that  regardless of whether or Republican or a Democrat is in power, special interests and violence consistently hack the political process — far more than Russia could ever hope to. Many of the memes simply championed Hillary Clinton and championed typical liberal dogma:

In short, the Trump administration is a corrupt sh*tshow, the “resistance” to that corrupt sh*tshow amounts to support for other corrupt sh*tshows, and the empire is crumbling — but at least we have memes.

Opinion / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Monsanto hired paid Internet trolls to counter bad public image, lawsuit claims

Agrochemical giant Monsanto hired internet trolls to combat negative perceptions about their brand on social media and across the internet, according to a lawsuit filed by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit organization “working for transparency and accountability” in the American food system. The company has also been accused of manufacturing scientific research to support their products.

The allegations come amid 50 lawsuits, filed in a U.S. district court in San Francisco, that claim “exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and that Monsanto covered up the risks,” as summarized by U.S. Right to Know in a press release.

In a court document dated April 24, the plaintiffs’ attorneys accused Monsanto of operating a program called “Let Nothing Go.” The program is allegedly intended  “to leave nothing, not even facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs.”

According to the document, this alleged program was revealed in the deposition of David Heering, who works in Monsanto’s U.S. technology development department.

The document also alleges that Monsanto hires think thanks to spread information favoring the company.

“Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and the ‘American Council on Science and Health,’ organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers,” the filing claims.

The allegations regarding the Genetic Literacy Project have been somewhat confirmed by outside reporting, though it is unclear whether Monsanto funded the organization directly. Still, the company has indisputable ties to the organization and reportedly requested favorable coverage from scientists there. According to a 2015 investigation by Bloomberg titled “How Monsanto Mobilized Academics to Pen Articles Supporting GMOs”:

“The articles in question appeared on the Genetic Literacy Project’s website in a series called ‘GMO – Beyond the Science.’ Eric Sachs, who leads Monsanto’s scientific outreach, wrote to eight scientists [asking them] to pen a series of briefs aimed at influencing ‘public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance.’ Five of them obliged.”

Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord downplayed the significance of relationships like these. “Our goal is to elevate the public dialog and public policy discussion from its over-emphasis on perceived risks toward a broader understanding of the societal benefits of GM crops and needed improvement in policies,” Lord said in an e-mail at the time. “There is a lot of misinformation generated by groups who are opposed to agriculture and biotechnology.”

The lawsuit, however, cites an example of one study from the year 2000 that goes beyond spreading information and, if the plaintiffs’ claims are accurate, crosses the line into arguably fraudulent science. That study, led by Dr. Gary Williams, found there were no health risks associated with Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, but as the court document claims, it “has now been cited by 555 sources since its publication, and by the EPA many times, and is but one of many ghostwritten ‘science’ pieces by Monsanto.” The study’s conclusions have since been invalidated by other research.

In a 2015 email presented in the current lawsuit, William Heydens, a Monsanto scientist, seemed to acknowledge the alleged practice of ghost-writing, referring back to the 2000 study as an example of how to do it in the future with other researchers.

“An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000,” Heydens wrote in an email to another scientist.

Though this portion of the email appears to be a smoking gun, Monsanto has accused the plaintiffs of “taking a single comment in a single email out of context to attempt to mischaracterize” Dr. Heydens’s words. New York Medical College, which employs Williams, conducted an investigation into the plaintiffs’ ghostwriting claims and found no evidence of misconduct. Nevertheless, Science magazine detailed another instance of Monsanto attempting to control the outcomes of scientific research.

Either way, pro-industry ‘research’ has been used to justify the use of dangerous pesticides. In 2015, The Intercept reported on the EPA’s use of industry studies to conclude that Roundup is not an endocrine disruptor:

“Twenty-seven out of 32 studies that looked at glyphosate’s effect on hormones and were cited in the June review — most of which are not publicly available and were obtained by The Intercept through a Freedom of Information Act request — were either conducted or funded by industry. Most of the studies were sponsored by Monsanto or an industry group called the Joint Glyphosate Task Force.”

This example demonstrates that the reach of industry-funded or backed research extends beyond the reach of internet trolls attempting to bolster the brand’s public image, a dubious effort in and of itself.

The recent court document citing these alleged transgressions also criticizes Monsanto for repeatedly withholding information, a claim partially addressed in a March 13th ruling that forced the company to reveal some documents, which are now listed on U.S. Right to Know’s website.

Via Anti-Media

Featured Image: Jared Tarbell/Flickr