#and no offence to the first guy but how are you acting morally superior when you decided to go to a chiropractor for medical help??

[pikachu-says-peekaboo]

But actually black people do have denser bones than white people. Like the reason that most doctors believe that is because it's true:

This was a study looking at bone density and found that even when controlled for age, diet, lifestyle and assigned gender at birth, black people had denser bones than white people, which is probably why black people are less likely to go to hospital for broken hips and fractures than white people, and not because they like, get refused treatment or don't go to hospital.

Sometimes there are differences in people's bodies because we've evolved differently and that's not racist, that's just diversity and adaptation.

Just like how it's not racist to say that brown and black people are less likely to get skin cancer than paler people, because of the extra melanin! (Please note, I am not saying that it's impossible for deeper skinned people to get cancer, just a lot less likely; everyone should still wear sun protection, regardless of race.)

Why is it important to accept that sometimes there are differences between our bodies?

Because, you should understand that most medical professionals are trying to help you. Being suspicious of doctors and medical experts can kill people.

Do you know what happens when you have more melanin? You take in less Vitamin D. So when the doctor tells us we need to take Vitamin D supplements (especially during winter!!!) , it's not a racist conspiracy to get rid of us, they're trying to help us not die of malnutrition!!!

HIV being incorrectly called a "gay" disease (more straight people actually die from it) increased the stigma around treatment for gay and straight people, meaning loads of people died unnecessarily.

So, although yes there are some stupid things that people say because of prejudice (like that black people experience less pain), we should accept that all bodies are different and that's not racist. Google is free; learn to search things up and checking your sources instead of just deciding what's true or not to fit your worldview.

TL;DR - Black people's bones are denser than white people's bones, you should do your own research but 99% of doctors are trying to help you.

[dropthedemiurge]

Look at me being a Boston defender

I changed my stance on this character 2 episodes ago when I got to understand him better – and oof, this episode I wanted to run someone over with a car (Atom, walk carefully on the street)

But also I'm once again is fascinated by how much Only Friends love using parallels! This show just LOVES putting characters in the similar scenes or use same composition/camerawork but COMPLETELY flipping the narrative. And I felt it very strong today.

Atom being a little unsatisfied dramatic shit (no offence to Title but he acts annoying guys very well), lies to his sister about what happened between him and Boston, and of course Cheum reacts firsts and analyses maybe never. And of course, Ray and Mew give her full support as they just made up as friends, now their group is back and everyone else is kicked out.

All of them just took the information they were given by one very lying side and ran with it like they are used to feeling oh so superior and though i kinda dislike mew and cheum, i still have positive feelings about all of them, but at that moment I thought omg guys fuck you maybe

And I was surprised by a strong reaction I was having and the very righteous desire to protect Boston and prove them wrong! Then I realized something. It's interesting, because we had almost the same scene in the hostel.

We started from the Friends POV and we saw Boston intruding on a safe/home place where Ray, Mew and Cheum chilled. And we knew Boston was in the wrong there and did some shit so it was so satisfying to watch him be almost annihilated and drowned, the hurt feeling from everyone translated very well to a viewer.

And then we have the scene in Boston's home during him doing thing he loves aka taking photos (even not nude), where the Friends are now intruding without care.

And everything is the same. Boston did a shitty thing sleeping with a person close to one of his friends, Mew, Cheum and Ray have each other's backs and yell at Boston, same vindication atmosphere – BUT it made a complete 180 turn.

Because it's clear how we shifted POV to Boston, and we know his backstory, we know what actually happened and we've already been in his mind for quite some time so we understand him. That he just has a different frame for relationships and sexual activities and he doesn't understand how to navigate communication correctly, but he always tells the truth and this time he did it too.

Only no one believes him! Because his "friends" operate on all their previous reactions and knowledge of Boston. Of course, they would believe a poor little brother of Cheum, of course evil Boston tricked him and threatened him into sleeping with him.

Boston always told his side of the story but no one ever believed him or didn't want to understand him, and that's what makes you so frustrated and angry with them. They keep blaming each other without trying to understand (Cheum, I am SO looking at you and your double standards and oblivious perception) and they keep scolding him because they feel morally superior (Mew, I really don't like the new you and you probably always been like this but storytelling hid it from us and ugh).

I'm kinda not sure about Ray because at first he obviously protected Mew didn't expand the fighting, and here he's closed off and... looks conflicted? His only scolding was about "it's your friend's brother!" and that might be headcanon but we know Ray had to spent quite a lot of time with Boston before, and he's not a saint himself, I feel like if it was just two of them, Boston could even explain himself properly and change Ray's opinion. But definitely not when all friends ganged up on him and didn't believe ANY of his words. They weren't even ready to listen, they just came there to accuse.

I don't know, I'm ready to fight for Boston, dude isn't always pleasant but he needs someone to listen to him and tell him he's a worth being, because he already hides and cuts off his dreams and things he wants in life and his feelings too, and all his coping mechanisms are shitty and he gets blamed and hated for anything he does, even though he doesn't know any better or he gets blackmailed and defamed.

Of course he looks in shambles and on the verge of breaking down and seeks Nick out because at least someone is reckless enough and has a big heart to love him no matter what.

BUT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PARALLELS! Only Friends make so many parallels and each one of them is so delightful and fascinating! This show is so complicated and good.

[lovehatinganime]

Iguchi Shūichi a.k.a Spinner Headcanons

Family and Childhood:

All members alive.

Iguchi is an only child.

He had problems, mostly in social settings, such as school.

I imagine Spinner as someone who always struggled to fit in, for some reason or another. Instead of trying to help and understand him, people usually rejected him. Maybe he has even been a victim of bullying.

His house, on the contrary, was a happy and peaceful environment . His reptile parents, despite demanding some discipline from him, have always been very loving. 

Iguchi had a very active family life, they made a lot of plans like going to mountain, the swimming pool, amusement parks, auto-cinema…

Used to hang out a lot with his cousins during his teenage years but they started to grow apart when they got older.

His parents live far away from him (went looking for a hotter clime when retired and currently reside on the beachside). 

They don’t know that their son is involved with the LOV and would have a heart attack if they find out.

When his parents left, the Shūichi´s old house was sold and Iguchi moved to some cheap apartments downtown. 

This is where he currently lives, by himself.

Criminal Record: Illegal car races.

That`s all.

Honestly, I don’t think Iguchi had any previous serious offence; I would say he only started acting like a villain to follow Stain`s steps.

Extraversion level: Introvert.

I picture him as a loner (due to his past experiences with people and Idk I just think it somehow suits his character).

Hogwarts House: Maybe Slytherin.

I mean, I don’t want to make this a: `omg he is a villain and has snake familiar aesthetic; so he must be a Slytherin´; however, he kinda fits in the house description, doesn’t he ¿?

Spinner is cunning and ambitious (wanting to be one who keeps on with the hero killer legacy is no joke). 

Determined to achieve his goals.

He also has pride (example: he completely denies his lack of driving skills) and this superiority (I mean, he probably thinks he is morally better than most people who don’t follow Stain`s teachings) that reminds me of Salazar Slytherin.

Hobbies:

Could spend hours laying beneath the sun, closing his eyes, his mind completely blank.

Spinner is a heavy music fan.

His speakers blow annoying all the neighbourhood.

Of course he would buy tickets for concerts every weekend if he had the money!

Always wanted to form his own band. 

He would, most likely, be drummer. 

Being in the background is the only way he could overcome his stage panic.

Likes playing pool and darts.

He surfs quite decently.

Very into… any kind of combat sport, really. 

I am all about boxer Iguchi in a Quirkless AU. 

He would still be a guy that looks like a reptile, you know, because he has gotten implants and scale like body art.

Would win all the gold belts as the kick ass he is.

Other random stuff:

Daydreams about Hero Killer Stain telling him he is a mighty successor.

Tries to read philosophical books but struggles.

He often ends up searching on the internet for simpler explanations of the complicated concepts. Then incorporates the most useful ones to his ideology in order to use them as arguments against false heroes.

Spends more time than he would ever admit doing his hair and a quite a decent amount of money in spray.

He is salty that he can’t go to his local hairdresser any more because people would call the police.

Iguchi is a great observer, few things go unnoticed by him. 

Problem is he also gets distracted super easy.

This is my explanation of how both things can be possible at the same time: Spinner is so perceptive that, at times when a lot is going on, he suffers from saturation of stimuli. 

He gets blocked, unable to decide what to focus attention on or what course of action he should take first. 

Sadly, this makes him seem as a bit incompetent.

Gossip? Nuh-nuh.

Turns deaf ear or even leaves the room when Toga, Twice, Kurogiri (yeah, he might not seem like it, but he totally has a gossipy housewife spirit) and maybe others too (depending on who and what they are talking about) get all busybody mode on.

Sucks at flirting.

Hates liking someone because he feels the need to make a move but is terrified to do it when he knows he is definitely going to mess everything up. That`s when stressed lizard is most stressed.

Fantasy RPG AU Character:  

He would choose the biggest and strongest race available, equip all the weapons he can and forget about the armour.

I believe Spinner would be born in a magic clan or something, becomming an elemental wizard, probably with water and earth combined powers.

[darrowsrising]

Hiii. I’m the same who wrote about Atalantia au Grimmus time ago and now I am here again to share another rant (I hope I don’t annoy you): I really enjoyed the prospectives introduced with the new characters in Iron Gold (considering that all that is said in the first trilogy is from Darrow’s point of view), but I ended up hating on Ephraim and Lyria. They act like they are the only people who lost someone and talk shit about Darrow&co because their own lives are bad. (Continue...)

  (Pt. 2?). I mean, criticizing them won’t solve anything. If you thing the new Republic not better than the old Society, than do something. Make a difference. I even appreciate Lysander and the Vox Populi more than them, because at least they are doing something to change a situation they don’t like and that they feel “wrong”. But acting like morally superior just because nobody is coming to make your life better is annoying and useless. It won’t change a shit. (Continue…)  

  (Pt. 3. I’m sorry, this is too long. Don’t hate me🙈) They all say “The Reaper act like a Gold, he forgot his Red origins, he don’t know how people are suffering, they don’t care about us” but they don’t think that Darrow lost friends, his dad, his wife, just as Ephraim lost Trigg and Lyria lost her family. The difference is that Darrow chose to go on and help the others, while “the others” he is trying to save are too busy complaining to care for someone else. THE END.

(Pt. 4 actually) Sorry if the rant made no sense, I just wanted to share an opinion, so thanks for reading. Of course, I didn’t meant to offend people who actually like those characters, so I hope I didn’t bother you. Bye❤️         

My dear nonnie,

You and I need to learn to stop excusing ourselves for every little shite we do. Honestly! Shame gets you nowhere. You can invade my askbox with rants any-fucking-time !

I beg people to do it and all I get are crickets. Every time I get an ask is like my birthday!

Now, back  to the rant! I also dislike Ephraim, but I am lenient towards Lyria. Here’s why: she isn’t an agent of change like Darrow is. She is actually a boat at the mercy of the ocean. She just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. She also believes she has no agenc over her life so that makes her situation even worse, because when we say we can’t do something, we are imposing a limitation in our brain and it listens to it.

Darrow was picked up by the Rising, Lyria doesn’t have anyone. And yes, it’s wrong of her to judge Darrow like that, like he betrayed hs Color, like his son isn’t worthy of calling himself Red because he didn’t live in a mine (bullshite!), but she did it out of a misguided anger. The Vox does much worse. Yes, I said the Vox Populi is worse than Lyria.

Why? Because they alienate Darrow. They made him their God, which was wrong in the first place, they dehumanized him and thought he and his Rising will make their lives perfect. Of course it didn’t turn out how they hoped. And they blame Darrow for it - and even Darrow believes them. What’s worse is that they are the ones who spread  the “Reaper is a Gold now” shite. Don’t get me wrong! They are right about the social injustices done to Reds, but it’s this belief that Reds had it worst which…you can’t compare tragedies or geonocides or the oppressions suffered by a certain group or an entire people. While their reasons are valid, their ways aren’t. Yes, Darrow isn’t a saint, but you can put all the blame of the instability of the Republic on his shoulders, because every figure in Iron Gold plays a part in it. The people who tolerate Colorism, the people who abandoned the demokracy because it’s suddenly too hard and complex, the Senate, Mustang for giving up power, the enemies of the Republic, Darrow’s obsession with making things right so his people and other Colors can be at peace, so on and so forth…

As for Ephraim…well, I think Pierce expects us to at least understand him…but I don’t. I just straight up dislike the guy. I can’t forgive him. You could say that it’s the pills, but that’s an excuse and a poor one. No offence to those who actually like him! It’s just my opinion and I’m biased, because the kidlets are the most precious to me, the source of my faves’ happiness.

I know Pierce Brown has a gift for writing the good side of dark grey characters, but it’s really hard to change my opinion on this. His pov is the hardest to read and I don’t like Lysander that much more than Eph. I’d rather have Apollonius Redemption Arc and the guy isn’t much brighter on the black to white scale.Yes, I know I’m biased. I’ve said it already…

Come rant more often! XOXO!

[roxannepolice]

Thoughts on Reysabella's monolouge and why there’s always been a red light in my head about this trilogy

So, a few hours ago I made a few hysterical posts regarding the last force bond scene in Jedi the Last, among others saying I really hope it's all heading for dark!Rey. As I already mentioned, her monolouge in that scene gave me strong Isabella from Measure for Measure vibes and she's a character I really dislike. Basically the scene reestablishes Kylo as dastardly villain and Rey as an unfaltering maiden of light, which is the interpretation so many view as the right one. Regardless, the play isn't of the official Disney-LF material, so it's not like there's room for hysterics as it being an argument against reylo or bendemption. As I also wrote, the scene upset me esthetically above all. But I had to ask myself, why did it rub me the wrong way, why did it give me a sensation of a needlessly false note in an otherwise good opera? At first I told myself - as you pointed out, you dislike characters like Isabella, you're entitled to do so but don't let your preferences cloud your judgment. But then I realised something more - one of the reasons I dislike such characters is exactly having grown up on Star Wars. 

What followed was a flood of realisation why ever since TFA I had this red light at the back of my head that this trilogy may break into some dramatic sh*t before the end, why interpretations of the last fb such as above were leaving me esthetically upset, why this entire trilogy, while excellently complementig the symphony the entire saga makes, seemed to me to have a... not exactly false note, but a too loud trombone? some misplaced arias? some keys that could have been better? too few instruments? those details that can make sense in the overall composition but it’s impossible to tell before the music’s over.

And then it dawned on me - this trilogy is that of doubtless believing. Or rather it seems to be. And more importantly, that’s what many viewers want it to be.

Now I know that at a first glance it’s very much what Star Wars has always been about but I’d object. When the characters and themes in hitherto saga are analysed it becomes apparent that doubtlessness, feverish belief is far from being complimented, as I’ll elaborate below.

First of all, OT. Now, the political subplot of OT seems pretty doubltess, but I wouldn’t say it has always been so. Back when the movies where being aired, viewers hoped, most probably hoped very surely and well groundedly that the Rebels will win - but that’s the basic hope we all have that good triumphs, it didn’t have that vibe the sequels have to them that vanquishing evil empires is *Moriarty voice* WHAT STAR WARS DO!!! Turning to the personal plots. Luke is easily the runner up to the title of the most doubtful protagonist of all time, second only to Hamlet. He tries, not does or does not, impossible to him everything is, he can take Obi-Wan to Mos Eisley but not any further. When he goes to face Vader in RotJ he does so fully bracing the idea that he can never come back. When he goes to the Cloud City, he does so half admitting Yoda and Obi-Wan probably have a point that he’s not yet ready to face Vader - but he just can’t leave Han and Leia. Overcoming his self doubt is a great and positive step in his journey. But, it is exactly when Luke develops a sort of overconfidence in himself, up to the point of thinking he can creep up on someone at night and read their thoughts, that he fails. Leia is in many ways an opposite of Luke, she’s a very unfaltering believer, she always knows right from wrong and she’ll always fight the latter in the name of the former. And while her struggles pay off politically, sequels introduce an unpleasant concept that it came at a price of her motherhood. When her child shows himself to be not simply a ball of light, she freaks out and has her miracle working brother who magically saved their father exorcise the darkness before it lays eggs. And on the other hand, there’s Han. A self proclaimed scoundrel who’s actually the good guy, nothing short of a walking self-doubt. Sadly, his is the case where too much doubt brought failure. But neither was he fervently believing in anything else.

Turning to PT. In terms of politics, it’s obvious prequels are far from hero worship. Liberty dies in thunderous applause, Palpatine becomes emperor according to every democratic rule, jedi asses are dragged like hell. Doubts galore. What about characters? Anakin is a serial monofidelist. First he fervently believes in the jedi order, then as firmly in Palpatine as a leader, and finally for a short while in himself to eventually have nothing left to believe in and spend 20 years as an empty shell. So, Padme? Yes, Padme firmly believes - in freedom, human (alien?) rights, peace, general welfare, democracy - but not republic or its representatives. She doesn’t believe in the republic beacuse there’s nothing to believe in, she can methodically explain to Anakin why this system works, there is no supernatural connection between republic and freedom in her head, that’s just how society and politics work. She also has little hesitation to call a votum against Valorum, is a leader of opposition in the senate and finally wonders outloud if the republic hasn’t become the exact evil they wanted to fight - to which Anakin of all people accuses her of talking like a seperatist. And finally, Obi-Wan. Again, apparently firm believer and undeniably, he has a couple of axes mundi that he just believes in - the light side, democracy, jedi beacuse not necessarily jedi order... I’d also say he really believed in Anakin to be the chosen one, which I think is - alongside their friendship, another of his few axes mundi - why his fall hurt him so much. But other than that? I’d say his serene confidence is far from fervent belief, he has no problem letting Anakin continuously break the jedi code (imagine if Windu had better knowledge of where little padawans come from...), when Han mocks the idea of the Force he just confidently has him watch Luke train with the ball - compare that to Darth Anakin force choking a man for a similar “offence”. 

Turning to ST. There’s something almost grotesque about TLJ spoonfeeding us how dire Resistance’s situation is at the end of the movie and audience just going yeah, yeah, sure, they’re good guys in Star Wars, if they don’t win now you’ll give them another trilogy. As for characters - well, that’s exactly where interpretations differ. Of all mainest characters, Finn is the one most indisputably having had some sort of epiphany, a turning point in his perception, even if he hadn’t have time to maul over what DJ told him about war as business and Rose stopping his kamikaze. But as far as Rey and Ben are concerned - well, exactly, are their stories from doubt to different certainties, as some believe? If we assume TLJ was a journey from point A through some sidetracking to point A only more firmly - which is basically what Renperor throwing a tantrum and Reysabella expressing outloud Resistance’s moral superiority during the last force bond imply - then indeed, some trombone sounds out of place in the overall symphony. Now, Kylo Ben is arguably the character that had a word “conflict” put next to him most frequently, and it basically depends on whether this assertion is correct that he’s either a broken abuse victim or a cold psychopath the only sure argument right now is that latter makes a boring story. But Rey... Rey’s a believer. More, she’s a denier. A believer capable of wasting over a decade of her life in the name of denial. New puzzle pieces take time to make her reconsider the picture: no no, Luke, you’re wrong, jedi were awesome. No, you didn’t fail Kylo, Kylo failed you. Liar, she calls Kylo fun fact: Obi-Wan to Dooku telling him senate is controlled by a sith lord: I don’t believe you; Anakin to Padme on Mustafar: liar when he tells her his version of the Dolorous Night - even though a part of her knows that what he said is closer to truth than what Luke told her. When she goes to Supremacy she does so firmly sure she’s right and Luke’s wrong. Now, of course, she progresses through the movie, but, interestingly enough, the hesitation before the third act isn’t adressed as firmly as it should be at the end of the second movie - if it is in fact acknowledged. AotC ends with Yoda informing everyone there was no victory, only a beginning of clone wars. ESB makes a fine case of Luke quite quickly calling Vader father and painfully asking Obi-Wan why didn’t he tell him the truth. Rey seems... exactly, back in the place she was, only more firmly. 

Case in point, to a naive eye it appears Rey had something of a paradoxical perception twist, and that was her only twist in the entire story - she changed her perception to find out her older perception was right. And that of course applies to Kylo Ben, and him alone. For many, even the truth about her parents shouldn’t be a table turner which expresses our escapist society disturbingly well. But more importantly, it’s not a misinterpretation. I know there are plenty of excellent meta explaining how Rey isn’t actually as firm in the last fb, but tbh, an intuitive impression is probably the right impression in a blockbuster. The actual question to ask is what does this firmness mean in the overall story.

Too high minors, too low majors, too self assured this allegro con brio seems.... Is it to establish a new key? Maybe.

[beinglibertarian]

Rolling Stone Gathers Moss

“Why bother with newspapers, if this is all they offer? Agnew was right. The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits – a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.”

– Hunter S. Thompson

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by “Raoul Duke” first appeared in Rolling Stone magazine in November 1971. The preceding quote from that publication sums up the environment that led to the rise and, eventually, the fall of the great Rolling Stone itself; the shift away from the counterculture that it once represented and the pathological deterioration of principled liberalism.

If these words were to be circulated on the campuses of U.C. Berkley today the same way they were in 1971, you could expect firebombs launched through windows, police cruisers overturned, and any poor fool in a red hat to be viciously assaulted with a bike lock. University students today surmise that musings this offensive, have been manufactured by the primitive IBM computer that once spat out numbers used to help exterminate Jews in the Nazi death camps; a right-wing hate machine. Or maybe Milo Yiannapolous wrote it?

The suffocating media bias of the 1960s was difficult to escape. A lethargic gray specter of middle-class America was distributed with cunning sterility through the generic, bogus smiles of cable news networks and traditional print. Despite the election and assassination of Kennedy and the signing of the Civil Rights Act, if you had turned on a T.V. this was still Eisenhower’s America: regimented, religious, conservative. And the cultural vacuum created by the Eisenhower years had began to suck even harder with Lyndon Banes Johnson at the helm.

American media was out of touch with this new generation. Elitist authoritarians were preaching their moral superiority stamped with stars and stripes to a generation of cynics. These kids didn’t have a fucking clue what they wanted, but they wanted no part of what they were being given. So rose Rolling Stone, a counterculture bible for babyboomers, co-founded by Jann Wenner.

The adjective “cruel,” meaning to willfully cause pain or suffering to others and feeling no concern about it, paired with the noun “faggot,” the antiquated pejorative used to define a homosexual man, is Thompson’s description of the media community of the day. A description evidently endorsed through publication by Jann Wenner in 1971. Because according to Thompson: “…there is no such thing as objective journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

Wenner today lives with his common law partner Matt Nye in, I’m guessing, New York City. He gives big money to Democrat candidates and makes millions off fabricated stories about the gang-rape epidemic at the University of Virginia. Then loses that money and gives more money to Democrat candidates. Wenner’s closet homosexuality in 1971 didn’t have him take any offence to Thompson’s comments, or at least not enough to hinder publishing the “hate speech.” Maybe it was the dollar signs flashing in his eyes, knowing that something as wild as Thompson’s Vegas adventure was a viable revenue stream. Or maybe liberals back then had more important things to bitch about.

Things were different in the 1960s. The anti-war movement and the civil rights movement were a just cause. The catalyst for a just movement of equal rights for women and gays and minorities was free speech, of which Jann Wenner was a huge proponent. When students at U.C. Berkley marched in the streets in the 1960s, it was an attack on the elitist, authoritarians and an establishment hellbent on keeping opposing viewpoints and the ideas of personal liberty stifled. The gang of “cruel faggots” kept the official narrative running but no one under 30 was listening.

The whole goddamn world had had enough of the travesty of war in Southeast Asia. There was no ignoring the ineptitude of American politics. The only reasonable thing to do in 1969 was to drive out to Altamont for the weekend, load up on heinous chemicals, hunker down and rethink your approach to the political process.  

Thompson, the then-young, liberal anti-hero, could often be found gobbling LSD and firing his guns (he was a lifetime member of the NRA) at propane bottles for a crowd of jeering burnouts or Bay area bikers at his fortified compound, Owl Farm, in Woody Creek Colorado.

It was Jann Wenner’s idea to put Hunter, with all of his fear and loathing, on to the campaign trail in 1972. Why not get the guy who wrote Hell’s Angels? Hunter was someone with a penchant for dealing with vicious thugs and sick freaks gone crazy on power, someone who could draw a parallel between Richard Nixon and Sonny Barger.

Thompson’s openly-biased, subjective and wild account of the 1972 presidential election was the red Chevy convertible of campaign coverage. ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ on repeat and at full volume, barrelling across the country at 110 miles an hour or so and in search of an honest politician. In Hunter’s eyes, the only one that even came close was George McGovern, the senator from South Dakota.

McGovern’s non-interventionist platform focused on a complete withdrawal from Vietnam, amnesty for draft evaders and a Milton Freidman inspired, negative income-tax meant to replace the bureaucratic burden of social welfare programs and a complicated tax code. Thompson’s version of events is the story of an idealistic underdog fighting against the odds only to be crushed by postmodern Americanism and the establishment incumbent, “Tricky Dick Nixon.” McGovern might have owed a White House win, in part, to Thompson’s and Rolling Stone’s relentless support had he not owed his White House loss to the mental distress of his vice-presidential pick, Thomas Eagleton.

There’s no way to properly explain how great Rolling Stone was in those early years. How well the magazine represented the anti-establishment culture, individual liberty and equality for everyone. It can’t be compared to anything else because there was nothing else, only the traditional mainstream garbage and Rolling Stone.

In the four decades that followed, the magazine continually fell behind market trends in the music industry, clinging nostalgically to some bygone era. They were late to the party covering punk in the 70’s. While they tried to figure out what had happened in 1991 Seattle they had totally dropped the ball on hip-hop. All of a sudden it was three years later, Kurt Cobain was already dead and they had lost so much ground in the L.A. scene that the black community had given up on them.

Wenner had pompously brushed off having any type of internet media strategy until around 2009, when he appointed one of his sons in charge of the “digital media” division. The type of position acquired only by a millionaire trust-fund brat of a rich liberal.

For years, Rolling Stone was unable to get a handle on what was happening in music or technology. Incompetence was a bad rash that spread through the entire organization. Getting caught with the University of Virginia gang-rape lies was an obvious black eye on the magazine. Wenner’s ability to make sound decisions was in question. His son should have been sent to North Dakota to learn how to weld. Despite all of that, the magazine was still making money, selling something like 1.5 million copies monthly. Not that anyone would admit to reading it or spending money on it.

On February 20, 2005 Hunter Thompson blew his own brains out in the kitchen of Owl Farm. His chronic alcohol and drug abuse had rendered his writing profitless and that was of no use to Rolling Stone. He had survived the last 10 years by republishing old articles and collections of his work from different outlets. He had already lost faith in the American political process. After Bill Clinton failed to appease his concerns over firearms, marijuana legalization and the American constitution, Hunter simply lost interest and poured himself a stiff drink.

One of the core tenets of Thompson’s “Gonzo journalism” was: total subjectivity; blatant, outright bias. An approach emulated by current Rolling Stone top shelf contributor, Matt Taibbi; a pliable, milquetoast impressionist with a learned sense of Thompson’s wit and scorn. The trick, which Taibbi understands as did Thompson, is that good journalism has a subjective theme, of course, but doesn’t blur the lines that keep public servants accountable. Taibbi likens journalists cozying up to politicians to the separation of church and state. Lacking objectivity, a good journalist should still keep an arms length from politicians and be critical of all of them, especially ones entrenched for decades in unashamed cronyism, a disregard for human life and vicious foreign policy.

“Reporters are supposed to be unpleasant, grumpy people who instantly deface the posters of the powerful whenever they get the chance”

– Matt Taibbi

In 2008, Taibbi had the opportunity to join other journalists on one of Obama’s campaign flights. He liked Obama, but when he noticed all the pictures that lined the walls, pictures of Obama and all the different journalists, all with their arms around then candidate Obama and smiling, he admits that he felt a little dirty.

The real downfall of the magazine was that Jann Wenner had hitched the Rolling Stone wagon to a political party instead of a political principal.  

Obama graced the cover of Rolling Stone annually through his presidency. Jann Wenner and him had carved out their friendship and put it on display. Few presidents have had the opportunity to sustain 8 full years of foreign bloodshed without any outrage from Wenner and co.

Now that Obama was out, there was a constant theme in the election for his replacement and the primaries leading up to it. Americans were sick of the status quo. They were sick of being fed lies from mainstream media and “fake news.” People were waiting to revolt in the wake of establishment politics. Just give them a guy who’s going to shit on everything and see what happens.

American media today is out of touch and not only with this new generation. Outlets like Rolling Stone keep the official narrative going, but no one under 30 is listening.

When Rolling Stone endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, that was it. The joke was over. Jann Wenner had finally come out of the closet as an elitist authoritarian and a cruel faggot.

* Darcy Gerow is a family man and tradesman. He is a national board member for the Libertarian Party of Canada and the co-founder of @TheHardTruthsBookClub, an organization committed to causing greatness in working age me through brotherhood and literature.

The post Rolling Stone Gathers Moss appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2oJrdcW via IFTTT

[mayorgalvan]

Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording."Guesswork Documentary" Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording."Guesswork Documentary" RØL GSubscribe60KAdd to Share More1,052,198 views3,504 1,265ShareEmbedEmail Start at: Published on Jan 30, 2012Hitler Secret 1942 Voice Recording without add-ons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raD... Warning: Dictator Hitler videos are high power magnets which attract worthless comments from totally uneducated illiterate morons. Even if your English language skills are limited, it doesn't hurt to have a civilised debate. Hitler was a megalomaniac dictator and many Germans got carried away by his promises to make Germany great again after the humiliation of the Versailles treaty. The tragedy is that many Germans did not at all want him in power. For many Germans the horror of the dictator's iron fist rule was clearly foreseeable. During his 4500 days in power his crazy ideas totally ruined many millions of lives. This is a manipulative video which pretends to examine the implications of a secretly made recording from 1942 of the first 11 minutes of Adolf Hitler's private conversation with Finland's General Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. Viewers can make up their own mind about what they hear, especially if they don't understand German absolutely perfectly. The commentary is similar to many other war related propaganda films produced by biased USA "historians" for brainwashing future generations. The pot calling the kettle black. Be selective about what parts, if any, you accept as truth and what you reject as biased conjecture. Even the type of music producers use has a profound effect on how visual content comes across. I often switch off audio and make up my mind based on what the camera has captured. For other videos i.e. Nurnberg trials, just listen to the audio. At the end of the day it's a combination of parts of different videos and books which will give the best overall understanding of any historic event. Fundamental divisions amongst totally confused viewers become obvious when reading the comments in this or any of the hundreds of similar war documentaries on YouTube. Most comments strings for WW2 videos inevitably turn into a war of words between pro and anti Zionists. Hare brain comments which are made purely for the sake of causing offence will be removed. Contrary to suggestions Hitler made many speeches in which he spoke with a fairly normal tone of voice. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRsl53... During the visit, an engineer of the Finnish broadcasting company YLE, Thor Damen, succeeded in recording the first 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's private conversation. This had to be done secretly, as Hitler never allowed others to record him off-guard. Damen was given the assignment to record the official birthday speeches and Mannerheim's responses and following those orders added microphones to certain railway cars. Unfortunately, Mannerheim and his guests chose to go to a car that didn't have a microphone in it. Damen acted quickly, pushing a microphone through one of the car windows to a netshelf just above where Hitler and Mannerheim were sitting. After 11 minutes of Hitler's and Mannerheim's private conversation, Hitler's SS bodyguards spotted the cords coming out of the window and realized that the Finnish engineer was recording the conversation. They gestured to him to stop recording immediately, and he complied. The SS bodyguards demanded that the tape be immediately destroyed, but YLE was allowed to keep the reel, after promising to keep it in a sealed container. It was given to the head of the state censors' office Kustaa Vilkuna and in 1957 returned to YLE. It was made available to the public a few years later. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone. There is an unsubstantiated story that during his meeting with Hitler, Mannerheim lit a cigar. Mannerheim supposed that Hitler would ask Finland for help against the Soviet Union, which Mannerheim was unwilling to give. When Mannerheim lit up, all in attendance gasped, for Hitler's aversion to smoking was well known. Yet Hitler continued the conversation calmly, with no comment. In this way, Mannerheim could judge if Hitler was speaking from a position of strength or weakness. He was able to refuse Hitler, knowing that Hitler was in a weak position, and could not dictate to him.CategoryLicenseEntertainmentStandard YouTube LicenseSHOW LESSCOMMENTS • 2,876 Add a public comment...Top comments Pinned by RØL Gtester20142 weeks ago (edited)funny (actually more sad than funny) to read all the Hitler fanboy/fangirl comments, getting all worked up how their beloved Fuehrer became victim of this horrible, horrible piece of History channel low budget production. LMAO, yes, it was all a big unfortunate misunderstanding, everybody so evil except innocent Adolf and gang, and oh would the world not be just marvelous had Hitler won the warReply 5  View all 15 replies Rudolf the tall white Alien6 months agoHitler did not say in this recording Russen workers are animals. He sayed they had to work hard like animals. Stick to the truthReply 481  View all 70 replies Arische Ehefrau8 months agothis is bullshit propaganda im suingReply 823  View all 150 replies madmax17172 years ago'Absolute evil' lol this makes it more of a propaganda film than a documentary, where is the objectivity. You could say the same then about the allies, dropping atom bombs on a civilian population is more evil than anything.Reply 305  View all 51 replies Anne Wolfe1 year ago (edited)So when they (Hitler and Germany) speak with their then ally (Finland) it's an act of "evil manipulation" but when we (US/UK) meet with statistically the most murderous man in history (Stalin) it's gallant and necessary diplomacy? This "accurate and unbiased" documentary isn't even trying...Reply 304  View all 21 replies twohanded14886 months agoLet me guess, this documentary tells us that Hitler was an evil man with one testicle that tried to turn 6666 gorillion Jews into lampshades for no reason.Reply 220  View all 8 replies S. Hardy8 months agoThey speak of Hitler like he was bad or something.  I don't get it.Reply 219  View all 23 replies Norm Kid1 year agoYou must be very careful about these sort of documentaries, as they are extremely biased and dishonest. For instance, consider 7:45 when the narrator speaks about Roosevelt in a morally righteous light, attempting to prevent war. And Hitler is mocked as partaking in a "twisted, standup comic routine". But the context is not explained properly: In the letter, Roosevelt (and his British and French cronies) attempt to persuade Hitler to not intervene in "independent" nations, but the reason Hitler makes a joke out of it and the crowd laughs is because within the letter, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Iran are mentioned; these were not independent nations, rather, they were Middle Eastern colonies that the British and French had used trickery and deceit to overtake following WW1. There was even a Palestinian rebellion for independence taking place against the British at the time, and this is why the crowd laughs so hard when Palestine is mentioned. Hitler was exposing the shameless hypocrisy of THEIR telling HIM not to interfere with others, but the narrator wants you to think it's just Hitler being a sadistic bastard!Read moreReply 332  View all 33 replies Bul Mnstr1 year agoAllot of american bullshit trying to make hitler look that he wanted everything for him self. Do a bit of reseach and u will know what im talking aboutReply 161  View all 34 replies Hymer3001 year agoI wonder whenever we will ever see a video documentary about the 66 million white christian russians who were killed in the Soviet Union.Reply 148  View all 21 replies D Budai10 months agotalk about propaganda.... this documentary is a fine example.Reply 140  View all 7 replies nathan price8 months agoAmerica drops nukes on Japanese cities, and Hitler's the mad man, lolReply 126  View all 20 replies irina pivtchev3 years agothe only madness we know is the allies and how they lied and killed thousandsReply 119  View all 45 replies Vesa Hugh Nell8 months agoSo you couldn't just play the tape and shut up? Pganda robot.Reply 97  View all 32 replies Vot633 years agoLaughably inept anti-German propaganda: the Zionists need to raise their propaganda game. Here is an example: @ 42:59 the narrator asserts that, "Hitler casually refers to the Soviet workers as animals", trying to give the impression that Hitler regarded them as sub-human. If you read the translation, Hitler is saying that the workers in this giant tank factory are FORCED to live like animals, not that Hitler regarded them as animals. Thank you to the cathedral fools who posted this video, which reveals truths about Russia and Stalin's geopolitical imperatives that CONFIRM the National Socialist version of the Soviet/German conquest, a version that is further being confirmed by post-Communist Soviet researchers. Read moreReply 92  View all 20 replies 1776Rosco11 months agoThe winners write history!Reply 91  View all 3 replies Killjoy458 months ago32:40 Are these guys serious? It's obvious Hitler was reffering to the working and living conditions of the factory workers which may have been okay for Soviet standards, but not so great by German standards. What he was saying was that the workers were treated like animals BY THE SOVIET OFFICIALS! And what the documentary has to say about it: "Oh, he thought they were animals!!! He expressed his superiority complex once again!!!! GOD, Hitler was the devil himself".Read moreReply 86  View all 8 replies Mark Kamphuis1 year agoSo biased, this is laughable.Reply 80   cory21462 years agoSo many lies. Lies on top of lies. For what purpose I often wonder. What are they so afraid of? The more lies they tell, the harder I seek the truth. I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame.Reply 72  View all 5 replies Charles McCarron1 year agoThe propaganda never stops!Reply 70  View all 3 replies Show moreAutoplay  Up nextSS Archive HITLER colour documentaryDonatello20301,132,677 views46:00Hitler's Secret Drug HabitDadoTheGoodVillain110,879 views43:5710 of the Most Unsettling Audio RecordingsMr. Nightmare3,451,920 views11:03Hitler's American Business PartnersPrentissMcCabe501,331 views43:4625 Facts About Hitler That Might Take You By Surpriselist253,053,608 views6:59The Brits Who Fought For Hitlerdocufans1574,726 views46:56The Hitler FamilyDandDBroadCasting391,627,201 views52:30Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #2 ) Film DocumentaryDonatello2030293,045 views15:02The Secret Life of Adolf Hitler (720p)DOCUMENTARY TUBE811,526 views50:24Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #1) Film DocumentaryDonatello2030823,324 views15:02Top 10 Hitler's Secret WeaponsWe Love Facts279,723 views7:44Science Documentary - Alien Artifacts DocumentaryAlien Documentary53,823 views1:09:3010 Real Bigfoot Sightings Caught on TapeEskify6,525 views8:30Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to MentionA Big Secret602,442 views1:36:54Hitler's Secret 1942 Voice RecordingINODEUX10,274 views45:2410 Facts About Hitler You Didn't Know AboutFacts Verse2,300,083 views6:38(HD) The Secret of Hitler's Hidden Drug Habit - Forbidden History DocumentaryBabylonsChains51,338 views46:2110 Ways Hitler Could Have WonEskify972,761 views8:11What Happened to The Man Who Refused to Salute Hitler?Thoughty22,516,350 views4:13Adolf Hitler Bio Colour #5 ) Film DocumentaryDonatello20301,129,301 views15:02SHOW MORENEW Language: English  Content location: United States  Restricted Mode: Off History HelpAbout Press Copyright Creators Advertise Developers +YouTubeTerms Privacy Policy & Safety Send feedback Test new features © 2017 YouTube, LLC