Templar Knight

I'd be far more worried about Antifa than any Nazi groups in the US, and world-wide. If alone for no other reason than actual Nazis will grow in number because Antifa remains unchallenged. Many Alt-Right members have spoken about how if it weren't for the behaviour of groups like Antifa, they'd never have gained the followings they have, which are continuing to grow the longer they keep up their current tactics. I've seen Antifa show up to protest numerous Free Speech rallies in different areas across the US because they automatically assume: "Oh you're all Nazis because you protect the rights of Nazis to speak.", meanwhile they don't seem to understand that the best way to stop the growth of extremist ideologies is by actually having open debate and breaking apart their ideas to make them look like morons. For some reason they seem to want to promote underground echo-chambers of extremists to grow to critical mass because they're incapable of intellectually beating them in a way that's calm and composed. Styxhexenhammer666 has been in debates with Alt-Right figures like Jared Taylor, when Styx asked Taylor to explain how exactly HE intended to make a white ethnostate out of the US without violence or civil war, Taylor couldn't give a response, he ignored Styx's direct question, and Styx was one of the few people of the night who actually came out looking very good. But yet Styx is called a Nazi-supporter because he DARED to enter a debate against a member of the Alt-Right. The entire state of California basically gives Antifa chapters carte-blanche by doing fuck-all to stop them at rallies they bust into, or after the various cult-like stories that come out of the groups and how they treat people who "want out" of their chapter and nothing is done to the groups themselves. Germany has THOUSANDS of Antifa members that have at least minor political endorsement by official parties, and were literally able to besiege the city the G20 meetings were taking place, beating up anyone who they could find was even vaguely associated with "Nazis" and cause a ton of property damage. Meanwhile you see some Democrats waving around the Antifa handbook as good reading material, that was before Fire and Fury came out. You seen many of the Right in the US waving around Mein Kampf copies? The literal Nazi handbook? I certainly haven't. I've also seen the comparisons made between the original Italian Fascists and ANTIFA, they're eerily similar. Both love their black clothing. Both are very authoritarian in their demands and how they seek to carry out their actions. Both love arson and beating up opponents in mobs. Both claim to be socialists, and love political activism. And both are against the idea of Free Speech. Fascists or Nazis folks, take your pick. I'd be more worried about the former before the latter in your American politics right now. Despite all the Charlottesville harangues (While being incredibly stupid in their form of protest, not all of them were Racists or Nazis or what have you), I don't see any great resurgence in Klansmen numbers, or actual Neo-Nazis rising to power. Fuck, the few that have any kind of public voice at all are critiquing Trump because he's not being a complete racist. But EVERYWHERE you look I guarantee you'll find some kind of group favouring Antifa or groups akin to it, or are otherwise too spineless to call them out on their own hypocrisy. Better to serve Fascists than Nazis, I suppose.

I personally don't like the show either, that's just me. I find it to be too melodramatic about the whole situation for me to take seriously. Though yea, I did notice how nobody seemed to notice what was up with the story and how this show isn't really well-written at all. Up here in Canada the show made a few bits of news and circulated around as "Promoting a Conversation on Suicide in Schools", which is basically Liberal-Speak for making a generally positive statement about something without commenting on its quality or content. The inherent problem being: "What kind of conversation can you have when you open it with such a clumsy attempt at one?" I mean, if this film were actually trying to promote a conversation, and not a statement, it would actually be making us doubt who was right in which situation and make us question the broader concepts. But from the start, the show wants us to feel bad for the girl who commits suicide, and to go along with her as to outline the 13 reasons (Most people who leave notes when they commit suicide rarely go to such lengths) that led to her wanting to kill herself. No, I'd argue its not promoting a conversation, its giving a specific statement on the subject. A statement which MIGHT promote a conversation, but one which doesn't necessitate a conversation. Like for the first case, what kind of conversation is that supposed to have in regards to this? "Should we not break up with people we don't feel 100% on in High School because they might try and kill themselves out of sadness?" No fucking way. Or "How do we teach students on how to deal with assholes?" Actually, that'd be a conversation I think a lot of people should have, teaching people how to not get worked up over every random fuck who doesn't like you can go a long way in life. As for the lack of critique of the show though, I think the bigger problem of why people don't notice, or aren't willing to call it out, is because of optics. Nobody would want to be seen criticizing a show like this unless the establishment does, because they're afraid of being seen as un-caring of suicide. So many people nowadays are incredibly concerned over how they'll look over opinions on things that don't really matter. Because a lot of other people today are really trigger-happy about lambasting people as the worst human beings on Earth if they have so much as a critical opinion on something the establishment likes. Its a view I've seen becoming increasingly prevalent that you're only allowed to be critical of certain things in society. Various subjects, movements, and issues are not allowed to be critically examined, because it has been judged that they're out of the discussion for one reason or another, or are conveniently avoided. No different from the 1960s or 50s, hence why I use the same term "the establishment" to quantify those in ideological power on this, though the people who make up the establishment are much different than those then. Could also be that a lot of people just don't know how to give out critique either. That's certainly the case with most University and College Students. They're concerned about feelings before reason. They don't want you to think about the story, they want you to feel bad about the situation because its apparently inherently bad. Which even if it is, there are plenty of cases where well-written stories can leave you feeling terrible or sad at the end of them because they were so good. Raising the question of why not criticize the writing if you actually want people to feel bad, and think about the plot in a serious and smart manner? Fuck, I watched "Unfriended", which deals with a similar concept in a horror movie sense, and I found it to be immensely more enjoyable and thought-provoking towards the end (even though its not that deep either) with the whole concept of the Ghost/Demon/Whatever of the girl who killed herself wanting the person out of the group to admit which of them made the video that made her go to kill herself, to admit that they did it openly, when in truth, it already knew which one made it. But it wanted to hear them say it themselves, to show that they actually did feel bad for the event, that they take responsibility for what happened, but the person never does, and all of the group end up dying horrible deaths because of it as the Ghost tries to force them to admit it as it kills each of their friends one by one (the idea being that if they didn't feel bad for the girl committing suicide, maybe they'd feel bad that their friends are getting killed because they won't admit to it). But no, the person was incredibly selfish, and not remorseful. That horror film, arguably raises more of a "discussion" than 13 Reasons Why. But you saw nobody talking it about it then because it was an "MTV-funded movie".

Kingdom Come: Deliverance

I've seen Sci-Fi concepts use it. While it is not strictly automated as far as I remember, the Pendragon Series 4th Book "The Reality Bug" has a setting the revolves around the vast majority of people on the world being constantly hooked up into VR machines. Personally, I think our society is more likely to end up like Ghost in The Shell or Bladerunner before Matrix. Wherein we have elements of really advanced technology, but it doesn't really dominate our world on its own, humanity still goes on as it always has, new problems just present themselves. Hell, even the game Observer may be a more potentially accurate portrayal that takes many of these concepts into account. Sure, some people will be tempted towards the escape to another reality, but I don't see a vast majority of people buying into it, not unless our world becomes literally complete shit. Even in that scenario, such tech would still be expensive as hell. The current VR experiences that allow for near total physical integration through 4 different pieces of tech still cost a ton and are more of a novelty item right now. I'd foresee more people buying cheaply made suicide kits a la Children of Men before getting what will likely be expensive VR tech. And robots gaining sentience? I doubt it. Even if they do, we'd still have the upper hand. We'd need to create machine with their own self-sustaining power supply, self-maintenance, and potentially replication, to even begin to be worried. We'd also have to program all of these behaviour into them, so it'd be any programmer's fault for this shit happening, moreso than any machine themselves.

It very much depends on who you are. I would say our societies, throughout the developed world particularly, are not disposed towards encouraging such self-awareness or will-power. In fact the corporate cultures would encourage exactly those 3 main traits we discussed in some fashion. Tyrannical or barbaric though they many may have been from our perspective, there is an argument to be made about how past societies and earlier humans or even simply less developed societies were arranged and ran and how they in turn effected the mindsets of the people within. As a species, our history can arguably be defined as becoming progressively less and less focused on needs, and more focused on our wants and desires. A human being who doesn't need to devote 90% of their time and energy just to ensure that you and those you care about are gonna have something to eat and a safe place to sleep and live in, isn't somebody who's got time to be philosophizing, for example. Modern convenience and liberty of lifestyle go towards ensuring that these problems don't come up in the lives of most people, they never have to really deal with the effects of avarice. Its only in crisis situations where such things would get turned on their heads and people actually MAYBE clue in, or situations of scarcity, which eventually happens unless the interested parties actually find a new source that isn't as quickly exhaustible of whatever the scarce commodity is. Even in recognizing such a thing though, may not change anything on its own. I assume you know of Thomas Hobbes and his Leviathan and Behemoth? Specifically in Leviathan, he even knew in his time exactly how people think and react in situations of scarcity, particularly when there is no overarching authority to enforce a state of affairs. In such a situation, life is "Nasty, brutish, and short." as the competition for resources doesn't end at any point. Its why he argued an overarching authority was necessary, why government is necessary, basically. And today, while we have governments and bodies of authority in various manners and subjects, none of them seek to really enforce lifestyles as they did in the past. I don't think they should, I think people have the liberty to make their own mistakes in life and shouldn't need to be guided or forced down every path in their lives for their claimed betterment, for better or worse. When it harms others is when they aught to be punished for it, but you cannot really make a person not harm themselves, you can only try to. But then that's where I think the problem becomes, there isn't really anything to enforce lifestyles in many different places beyond laws, and most laws of most countries are not THAT intrusive into people's lives beyond certain subjects that would be hard to argue otherwise in (within the context of the culture, of course). Organized Religion does not hold the power it once had, so it cannot fulfill this role anymore, Science while being more compelling can be constantly ignored by skeptics on all manner of subjects simply because it is not infallible, and Philosophy is nothing but compelling thoughts and arguments that are in between the two. We also know that globally, we have no centralized authority with any real effective power to completely enforce certain ways of life. Slavery still exists, for instance despite it being banned in the majority of nations, genocide has been overlooked even though by international law it is forbidden under any circumstance. I also doubt that activists can do it. So, where does that leave us? It means we're basically just hoping more people become more self-aware and develop more willpower on their own, or that something changes to help impress those things into peoples' way of thinking. Proper critical thinking and self-reflective education IMO is one of the best ways of doing this on the small scale and is a positive thing, but even that isn't foolproof. Situations of general scarcity could help, like if we had another Great Depression Era sort of scenario, that'd be very humbling for a lot of people, you'd still have some greedy fucks, but in that situation you'd at least have a lot of people who might know that its like to have a massive fall in fortune in a short time, but people would suffer. But yeah, IDK what to think. Its a nice idea, and one that arguably should be promoted, but the cynic in me sees nothing changing on any major scale unless people are forced to change for whatever reason. Not in our societies, anyway.

To put my views very succinctly, I'd actually argue that most of human history has been dominated by 3 key elements of human nature: -Laziness (This does not mean that everyone is inherently lazy, but that the majority of everyone desires for the least amount of work for the most reward, if they have the ability to do so) -Greed (While being a desire for too much, this is also tied into a human desire for safety. They desire more than they need in order to feel safer in their positions in life, and can turn into greed. But the desire for more for whatever reason is another driver of human actions) and lastly, -Fear (This is another great driver for a lot of human action. Fear of something or other is and has been a great motivation to change things in human society in numerous ways both good and bad.) Letting any of them get out of hand causes problems, but I don't think its actually possible to entirely remove them from us and our ways of thinking.

Couple responses to the Rant that I know of and can talk about, to add a bit of criticism. 1: Joe Arpaio was never convicted any racist actions, after a long and lengthy investigation by some of the highest authorities under the Obama administration, no less. His only crime was being in contempt of the court. Suddenly he's a Klansman level racist? For someone who was apparently so racist, apparently nobody could charge him for it under the previous administration. 2: Who gives a flying fuck about the twitter tirades between Trump and Kim at this point? They've been doing this for the last year, if I recall correctly, neither have pushed the button. Trump's not done anything that the last Presidents haven't done in terms of NK, he's just done it in his own blunt fashion. (Which considering the fact that US actions towards NK in response to whatever they say or do have proven to make no difference no matter what form they take, I'd say who cares? This is the NK administrations that called Obama a big black monkey in office, and openly defied even Dubyay's rhetoric. It makes no difference how polite or crass the US is to them, they'll do whatever the fuck they want.) 3: Considering the Dems have yet to acknowledge Antifa's crimes, and in fact openly promoted their handbook, or the fact that many of their University Campus supporters openly call for violence against any suspected "Nazi", I'm not holding my breath on Trump acknowledging any of his "White Supremacist" supporters. Even though last I heard even they were pissed off at him because they didn't think he was racist enough, go fucking figure. 4: Hillary doesn't feel she did anything wrong in her platform, she's blamed everyone but herself for her failure at this point. Of course Trump's not going to admit he's done anything wrong either. This is the way of politics. 5: The media does lie, it does print bullshit constantly to suit the needs of its narratives and will bend the truth to suit the agendas of those who control it. I've seen them do it for far more insignificant things than political happenings, there's no reason why they wouldn't do it for the higher shit. Why exactly do you think CNN has become the Anti-Trump station with near 24/7 coverage, practically, and at times has reached FOX levels of absurdity in how it has covered it? Oh he had two scoops of ice cream for dessert and everyone else had one, real big fucking deal for prime time television! Oh, the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared Pepe The Frog as a White Supremacist Meme because it was used by Trump. Oh, Vice found a fucking Russian Dossier that says Trump spent time in a hotel in Moscow playing watersports with a couple Russian hookers on a bed and Putin gave him 60% of his country's cash to bribe him. You gonna try and tell me that this all isn't a complete bullshit circus on their end? The rest, I cannot really speak for since I either have little adequate knowledge about, or don't have much to criticize. I'm no Trump supporter, and I definitely don't think he's the best speaker, but I don't believe the media has ever given him much of a fair shake (hell, I'd argue they've all regarded him as a joke or just blatantly have tried to make him look like one from the get-go), and I don't think he's the worst President in your country's history. People just need to calm down and actually look at it all as critically and honestly as they can instead of trying to get their confirmation bias out of all the BS the media has fed them.

The Disaster Artist. Highly recommend it for anyone who is a fan of comedy, Franco's impressions were great, but I suggest anyone who hasn't watched The Room watch that first and then The Disaster Artist immediately after. You'll enjoy it much more on account of seeing it. PS: If you do watch The Room, have a few drinks and preferably watch it with friends who're in it for a goof, because it is a hilariously bad movie. I also would find a way to get it for free or as cheap as possible since I wouldn't give Tommy Wiseau money, but that's just me. Do your own thing.

I'll try and keep my counter short as well. I do tend to go overboard a bit too much at times, even though some people still find it interesting or engaging. I would agree on the idea that certain people are born inherently with certain advantages over others and that not by any means are we all born into the same circumstances, all of it being specific from culture to culture and society to society, obviously. But IMO its something so inherent to life that it seems almost meaningless to reiterate which is probably why it gets scoffed off so much by many. I'm not even sure I buy the argument that a lot of people don't understand the concept, I think many simply view it as: "Tell me more, everyone's got their own problems in life. And nobody's gonna fix em but ourselves.", wherein they understand what people are saying when they talk about it, they just feel as if everyone gets shafted somewhere in life. Nobody ever lives a perfect one no matter how great of a start they got, or how much help they have. At least, that's what I think a lot of people feel about it. I could be wrong, but that's the best explanation I have at the moment that doesn't delve into political dogma and social theories that aren't foolproof (the irony being mine isn't entirely foolproof either, but hey). I would also argue though that certain people have certain privileges within society, even if they're not of the dominant or majority demographic of an area as well. In which case, it kinda defeats the purpose of pointing out someone's privilege, because one could argue that almost everyone has some measure of it, but that's also dependent on how one views the concept and its subject to the social-cultural situation I'll grant. I can name various situations both historic and modern that I could use to try and demonstrate this idea, if you'd like. IDK, just my thoughts. EDIT: Realized I repeated my conclusion again from previously.

See, I disagree, "Privilege" of any kind is highly culturally subjective, but you don't hear of anyone talking of privilege in any context outside of "The West" because it doesn't exist as a concept outside it (And some of the textbooks I've read on the subjects even argue that its impossible for many Non-Whites to ever have privilege in any situation, which IMO is total BS.). And even if it does exist (which if it does, I wouldn't necessarily call it privilege), its IMO an inch away from a racist concept in and of itself. Why? Because it assumes that all people of a certain race are "X". That is the essence of racist ideas. Its this sort of thinking and promoting it in any fashion is a personal theory of mine as to why racism is not dead, and likely won't die, because people are promoting the idea of being a racist without necessarily realizing it. Nobody has any control over the race or sex they were born into, its entirely a lottery of genetics and souls which nobody has any power over. Does one choose where they are born, or what they born as? No. Its the luck of the draw, and arguably yes some are born with a better head start in life than others depending on the situation. But to me, "recognizing it" or bemoaning the fact that some don't, gets people nowhere. At best, you're stating the obvious (since in my experience, generally the majority group of people of a culture are the most likely ones to rise up within a culture and the most likely ones to be catered towards by the culture for no other reason than they are the majority. This is how pretty much all societies on Earth operated prior to this period of globalization, because this level of continuous cultural mixing has never occurred in all of human history, arguably), at worst its antagonizing people who do not feel like they're living a privileged existence at all. Like me for example. I'm supposed to feel privileged about the fact that my future prospects increasingly look like shit for no reasons or faults of my own? I'm supposed to feel privileged about the fact that in order to get ahead of my generation's game, I basically just saved my money and denied myself much of the pleasures of my age group just to make life easier for myself later? Or I'm supposed to feel privileged about the fact that increasingly my opinion can be waved away as meaningless by people who think I'm privileged because I was born white and somehow am incapable of understanding a given matter or giving any input? See how the disrespect can be a two-way street? Pardon me, if I don't feel as privileged in my life as, say, the child of a wealthy African-American family. Their family worked for the position they have, they're lucky to have it, and I don't begrudge them for it, but I certainly don't feel more privileged than them today in any respect. Everyone has their problems, I don't need people who don't know me condescending to me about what my life is when I don't mess with anyone else's business. Especially when it doesn't matter what I do to please them, they're still going to think I'm a racist and must self-flagellate myself for eternity. Its also all a grand illusion. There will never be a scenario where all on Earth are 100% equal in every experience of their life, the Communists have tried before, all have failed to do anything other than make collective destitution. One will always be more fortunate than someone else, and therefore have "privilege" over someone else who is not so fortunate, for no other reason that that's how nature is. On a basic level, nature is not equal to all living things, it favours some over others in various situations, but that does not mean that it is impossible for one to survive instead of another. That's also not to say I don't believe social problems shouldn't be striven towards fixing, society can always be improved, but that this way of thinking only antagonizes people and divides them along lines I do not think anyone desires a resurgence in. The whole problem would evaporate if the governments could actually provide a situation where everyone could get decent paying, easily accessible jobs that people enjoy. But that's not reality, nor does it look like it will be at any point in the near future. But that is what the real core of this is about, largely. I would also argue that social privilege of other types does now exist. It merely exists under the titles of "Affirmative Action", or "Diversity Quotas" rather than privilege, but its the same idea, you're favouring someone else for no reason other than factors which one has no control over, the only difference being that in these cases it is seen as "fair" because it is seen as a form of equalization. Because these sorts of people are constantly in the business of calling something one thing, while simultaneously calling it another for a different situation based on their moral compass. I'm more worried that to encourage such thinking will only hinder people from ever returning to the ideas of meritocracy (which is the objectively most fair idea when put into principle, IMO), especially since many of them view even the concept of meritocracy itself as "white privilege". Which is ultimately another problem, you have people who are getting so out of hand with these ideas that they're literally ascribing them, in some cases, to practically everything in "Western" society, when the reality is that they are more universal principles of human society at large. They're letting their hatred and untempered anger cloud their judgement and turn themselves into mirrors of the very things they despise, not to mention encourage those same despised people to grow in power as their way of thinking is justified. Or especially to flip out over things that really don't matter to this issue. My go-to is the reaction over the "Its Okay to be White." Posters. By the Gods, you'd think those were plastered with Nazi imagery and featured a Klansmen hotline, and weren't just text on a blank page. People raved on and on about this, the irony being that its the perfect litmus test for this. Why should such a statement anger anyone? It shouldn't anger anyone regardless of what group of people is being stated on the page, if they aren't racist. But yet it did, because it was saying that its okay to be born white, and that apparently offends people. Had the reaction of that kind been towards any other stated group, they'd be called racists, yet nobody saw such accusations being thrown by most public figures in regards to the event. Yet some were so triggered, you'd have thought it was the end of their world. Its this cognitive dissonance and inherent contradiction that will cause trouble in the future, just as similar types of such cognitive dissonance have throughout history as paradigms have shifted. IDK, I'm rambling on. Hopefully I at least made some sense. This is a topic of fair interest to me as an Anthropologist, Historian, and amateur philosophizer.

This sounds akin to one of Nikola Tesla's more zany ideas. Interesting in theory, but not really practical to actually test. I mean, he claimed with the right set of sufficiently powerful, properly placed, and precisely timed explosions one could split the Earth in two. Good luck to anyone trying to prove that one. At the time, it may have sounded plausible give how obsessed so many were with the "Cult of the Atom", but based on our data today, you'd be more likely to get this sort of cooling effect more reliably if a Supervolcano were to go off and kick up enough ash and gases into the atmosphere to the point where it actually blocks some measure of solar radiation and heat and causes global cooling via that method. Its why the Earth has been a snowball planet at least a couple times in its history (as a species, we've never seen such a thing, but geologically the Earth has seen it). As for the suspicious circumstances surrounding the research and it being silenced, this was also the height of the Cold War. Nobody in the US government, especially no the miltary, was going to be appreciative of an idea that actually promoted cutting back military spending, rockets tests, or nuclear development. Because even if this could be construed as a very mild and technical criticism of these kinds of tests, it would be criticism and possible advocation towards their shut down, nonetheless. Or the DoD simply didn't care, they had bigger problems than to pursue research into what probably would have been looked at as an outlandish theory (or simply a theory that held little strategic value to them), even then. Especially since the main guy pushing for research of it died.

Tis the season for sickness of some kind or another. Don't worry man, take a rest, get better, we're all old friends of waiting at this point, and we'll be here when you're back in fighting form.

Poets of the Fall, highly underrated band but I love a lot of their works. First encountered them in Alan Wake as the fictitious band "Old Gods of Asgard", but looked into more of their works since, their latest album has some good ones but this is a fav:

Resident Evil 7, Speedran the game to get the 3 Gold Achievements (No more than 3 heals, no more than 3 Storage Box uses, and beat the game in 4 hours) and beat it in 2 1/2 hours. Also played Not a Hero and End of Zoe and a couple of the Banned Footage mini-games. Decent deal for all of it in the Season pass.

Yeah, I'm not bashing the prequels at all I think they're enjoyable enough on their own, just not the best. I mean, I didn't like the idea that they decanonized the EU, but I figured: "Okay, if they want to make their situation less complicated and do their own thing, fine. So long as its good and they respect what they do keep." Unfortunately all we've gotten so far are lesser imitations of better story lines and characters, and just plain nothing that's as interesting as what was originally put there in the EU, meanwhile they try us sell us it like the EU never existed which is more insulting. Hell, one example I can point out immediately from my knowledge is that Kylo Ren stole Darth Revan's Helmet design. Its not exactly the same, but its pretty damn close, and it doesn't help to make this kid related in any way to Darth Revan with how mediocre of a Non-Sith wannabe he is.

What else do you expect from a Saw movie? The series has been a snorefest from the beginning. Eh, IDK I really enjoyed some of them, and found many of the trap ideas interesting. I will admit though, some of them have sucked hard. Anyway, I got new one: Star Wars Episode 8: The Last Jedi 3/10. I'm not kidding. I hated this film's writing. Its way too long of a film for a story that doesn't need such a length, that gives us basically no answers to much of anything that was raised in Episode 7 if it doesn't outright murder those potential answers right in front of us, its characters are almost all stupid/hot-headed/or incompetent, the overall crux of the conflict or problem the characters need to overcome as well as how they do it is stupid when analyzed, and overall it just sapped any enthusiasm I may have had to see Ep. 9. Don't get me wrong, there are a few visually stunning moments, some epic moments and homages, a few funny moments, and even some cute moments, but they amount to so little when compared to the massive holes that have been left shot through the plot of this trilogy now that I have no hope they'll ever be fixed adequately in the next film and the overall number of just plain dumb story decisions that I think will cripple this trilogy. I paid to see it on cheap night, and I'd rather re-watch the prequels. Seriously, fuck the new Star Wars trilogy. The writers don't give a damn anymore, so why should we?

The latest Tax Reform is the icing on the cake before Christmas, and probably will be what will get him a lot of The Rustbelt and keep him Michigan if nothing major changes to effect those populi, if it does what it appears it will do. I love the one major criticism I've heard about it really is: "Oh, this helps the rich save more, therefore we should all hate it.", neglecting the fact that said rich are still paying a bigger share than the lower middle class and lower class who're especially now going to be paying basically nothing in those taxes. Its only a few grand extra for each family involved, potentially, but that's huge for those of that finance level. And if it works and more people get into better financial situations because of it and everything else that seems to be economically swinging up for the US, you know damn well he's likely in for a 2nd term. Nobody's gonna give a fuck about the theatrics in the media or virtue-signalling out of Washington bureaucrats who all seem to hate him when the public can see the better situation right in front of them. I applaud the fact that he's doing what's best for the country, or at least appears to be economically, and I'm looking down from Canada. (I could care less about the lumber tariff, if our PM was so great his guys would be better negotiators. I won't be surprised either if Trump's guys end up dropping NAFTA outright either.) It makes sense, he'll likely be remembered as a Big Money President for the country, if nothing else. He's defied a bunch of the predictions on that end so far. Hell, if we were to have believed them, you guys would already be in another recession by now and never be seeing over 3% growth again.

Currently? My favourite is Berserk. Now to be clear, I'm a fan of the original series from the 90s, and the film re-makes of The Golden Age Arc. I don't like the new one that recently came out even though I do appreciate that they did decide to go beyond Golden Age with it. I eventually intend to read the Manga.

I think the situation has made things very clear to people that America is not strictly a "Democracy", its a Democratic Republic. Nothing wrong with that, just that its evident a lot of people don't recognize or aren't familiar with the distinction. As for the President's treatment of NK, its actually no different than how basically the last 4 Presidents have addressed the situation thus far. His administration is merely a little more blunt about it than most of them. If anything, NK itself has ratcheted up its own rhetoric and actions recently. Firing a blank over Japan's bow? Japan wasn't even that interested in the situation until that happened. Now look at the situation: China's agreed to more sanctions than ever before and may even be open to a strategic deal with the US to end the situation (who knows?), Russia's apparently moved several thousands of troops over to Vladivostok and they're no friends with North Korea, and several US navy fleets have been moved into closer positions with daily drills going on in SK. I hate to say it, because I don't like the idea of supporting war, but it may be the best thing for the situation in Korea if the war were to reignite and break the longest armistice in modern history. I'm not saying drop nukes, I'm saying formally invade with a coordinated effort and put an end to this nonsense before it does get totally out of hand. Plus I wager it'd be a war that at least has the potential of doing a lot more good for the world in resolving than all the ones that have been going on in the Middle East. Because what's the alternative? The NKs have no intention of letting their nukes go, they know what that means if they give them up, so they're likely to just keep steadily building their arsenal until they have one that rivals the US, or anyone else that might try and stop them. Once they have that, who's to stop them from just marching down and formally invading South Korea, with the threat being that anyone who tries to help them will get nuked? It'd be a total diplomatic failure for everyone involved, and basically the Japanese invasion of Manchuria/ Rape of Nanking equivalent for the UN (if they don't already have an equivalent by now). The US would be disgraced, the UN would be disgraced, and everyone else that's tried to avoid that situation, not to mention a huge humanitarian disaster for South Korea whose people would likely be killed, or enslaved. He also just passed his tax plan without much hassle, NAFTA talks are ongoing at expected pace last I checked, and he got his travel ban through the Supreme Court (7:2 btw, so it wasn't even a split vote along party lines). Were it not for the "Never-Trumpers" within his own party like McCain and the lower judiciaries, he'd probably be getting a lot more done. Not that anyone will ever give him any credit, 90% of the media is fixated on his Twitter feed and the Russian Investigation that's going nowhere fast. I would agree though that the last election was disappointing to see in terms of candidates. You had no really good choice. But I will say, I found it endlessly entertaining to watch how stupefied everyone was at the results and was arguably kicked off the most interesting sets of elections I've seen in my lifetime, at least from a spectator's perspective (actually Brexit may have done that first, but either way). They kept telling themselves the same fantasy over and over to themselves so much over the months leading up to it, and merely confirming their own biases, that nobody even contemplated that reality might play out differently. Small surprise that afterwards tons of people went flailing about looking for any irrational reason to explain or blame the results on rather than accept the results and try to make the best of the situation.

Wolfenstein: The New Order. Wyatt timeline first, on to Fergus next.

Here's my responses to the questions posed. I'd call myself a "Unconventional" Polytheist/Pagan. I say unconventional because I do not subscribe to any set of Gods or beliefs from any singular culture or doctrine, I merely am of the belief that many Gods exist, that they're likely of the absentee gardener variety for most cases, and that there are supernatural elements within the world. I reached this conclusion after formerly being an agnostic and seeing enough evidence in my mind to be convinced that such things must exist on some level. I also find it to be the more interesting way of interpreting these things and love reading through old myths, beliefs, and traditions. I've current read through Norse, Irish Celtic, Ukrainian, Circassian, Ancient Iranian, Ancient Indic, Ancient Greek, Ancient Roman, and small bits of Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian myths and religious stories. I know bits of religious traditions in a couple African cultures (Witchcraft and Sorcery beliefs basically) and Ancestor Cults of East Asia. I was raised very loosely Protestant, and have a fair understanding of Christianity, and the basics of Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Judaism. I'm first and foremost a rational thinker, I do not put my beliefs ahead of a more convincing reasonable explanation. For example, I do believe in evolution, I believe that the scientific method is the best means of generating reliable and trustworthy knowledge about most of the universe which all can understand, and I'm not much of a serious practitioner in my religious beliefs so it may help with my mindset. For many supernatural events and phenomena that I see or hear about, I put them to the logical test of David Hume's Theory on Miracles, for anyone curious (an Atheist himself, it was his theory on how a supernatural event could be potentially be considered real). I'm also of the opinion that you cannot force your religion or irreligion onto someone else. Religion is a very personal thing, and not something that you can necessarily explain to someone else and have them immediately understand and relate to. Its something that develops with a person with time and experience as well as knowledge, by and large. I'm more of a fan of letting a person come to their own spiritual beliefs that resonate with their understandings rather than to abide by a set dogma, but if its their choice, I don't care so long as they try and force their religion on me. My experiences with people of other faiths? Usually fairly amicable, but at the same time I've been able to dodge most religious discussions or they don't really come up around me that often. I did throw a couple of Divinity College students for a loop when I was in University and they went around asking about peoples' religious beliefs (taking the spiritual pulse of campus as a project I assume) and I told them mine, I probably had the more interesting response out of most of the people they asked just from how uncommon it was. They tried to ask me a bunch of questions about my faith and how much I knew about Christianity specifically, tried to get me into some kind of Bible studies group, go figure.

Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein The Old Blood in a 2 game bundle for $20 for PS4. Also grabbed Sonic Adventure DX, Sonic Adventure 2 (both were old classics of mine that I played the hell out of on early consoles), and Through the Woods on Steam for just under $20 total as well.

Jigsaw (Or Saw 8) 2/10 There is very little redeeming in this film for anyone who is a fan of the older films in the series. Maybe if you're completely new to the series you might appreciate it more, but this film isn't really made for people who are new to the series either. Its not strictly a reboot, but nor is it strictly a direct continuation. Dialogue sucks ass, the police characters are mostly generic and boring (not to mention having behaviour that's very unrealistic in terms of who they discuss cases with BTW), the traps IMO were nothing all that imaginative baring one or two instances (and even then, I find tons of other traps in other films far more creative or symbolically inventive), the plot twists can be seen a mile away, and nothing much is done to advance the series at all in any meaningful way. Half of the traps also rely on complete luck to activate correctly in many cases more than any other time in the whole damn series. I also didn't like the aesthetic, Saw is iconic for the grungy aesthetic its used for so many films, guess what? Its gone, the whole thing looks WAY too clean to be a Saw film (especially the traps, but to say why I think it makes no sense would be a spoiler). Plus overall the writing is VERY dumb for a Saw film. Yea, yea, #7 was dumb and other points in the series have had dumb moments, but there hasn't really been any film in the series where overall the whole plot summed up just comes across as completely stupid in almost every respect. As a fan, you'd be pissed for all the missed writing opportunities and left wondering what the hell the writers were thinking with what they did decide to go with. Only redeeming factors: 1- How they brought Tobin Bell back was actually smarter than I thought it was gonna be, and is actually not that mind-boggling when you find out why. May not make the most sense, but its not bad at all (Too bad the make-up guys couldn't replicate the face he had in the earlier films, but oh well, that's the least of the film's problems) 2- The female mortician was very pretty to look at. (Srry, guy here, gotta find something to appreciate in this film) 3- The different versions of the Hello Zep theme were all pretty nice IMO. Problem is, those are all minor points for the film, hence why I score it so low. The ending is especially bad, especially for a series that basically made it a staple to leave the ending on a note which people wouldn't expect and yet made sense when reflected on it.

Valkyria Chronicles: Remastered Edition

It could have, certainly, but then I also think it would have stopped being a consumer revolt at that point, which was basically all its ever been. Its also probably what has made it more popularly bulletproof from any kind of dismantlement, how exactly is one supposed to "break" a group of members who don't adhere to much central organization, and are basically just united by the common thread that they're various gamers or game enthusiasts with similar opinions on certain subjects? The fact that nobody can truly ever either lord themselves over so many different types of people and claim to speak on their behalf forever, and simultaneously no single person can ever truly be lambasted as the "Leader of GG" has its benefits, with the drawbacks being that organization is very impromptu and in many cases not as effective as it could be, and that GG as a group has basically no surefire way of "protecting" its "image" (some tried to organize to do this job during the early days apparently, but it was a thankless and herculean task, so most got burnt out and disheartened trying to do it). On the other hand, I don't necessarily think this matters since the image was basically shot from the get-go via it being a "hashtag" movement, and how basically 98% of all news sources were automatically against being honest about us. The mountain of articles written by hacks all over the world jumping on the bandwagon to just blindly hate on GG for reasons which are anything but consistent (seriously, if you read through them, they'll contradictory in claiming we either had ZERO impact at all, or that we're apparently the boogeymen hiding and have complete control over the entire industry, with no matter what case the result is that they somehow cannot ever stop referring to us.) have all but guaranteed that unless someone becomes morbidly curious or determined enough to dig deeper to get all sides on the matters, they're guaranteed to just take the wall of trashy articles at face value, and with how many there are out there, its easy to not blame people for getting that impression. The fact that almost none of the detractors have ever brought up the FBI's results on GG as a group only shows how selective they are with their info to maintain this narrative of toxicity around the whole thing. They don't care about honesty, they just want a demon to hang up and scare people into their social engineering agendas, and any critics are obviously just demons themselves who are better to be silenced than listened to. Kinda just like what some politicians today try and do.