Why Anti-SJWs like Star Wars 7

Can I answer this question? Something tells me I can't! Then I think about it - and I realize: OK! I can't! But - that wasn't what I was trying anyway. That ... what I can't.


This is pretty much just a theory. A solid one I guess. One that gets me a start into this topic since I still feel like a few things are left a bit unclear or at least a bit too far out in the open.

So, say hello to "Mr. Jinx". Yea - that topic. When I use that word I want to point out something that is wrong with this world. Maybe my concept is flawed. Maybe I perceive stuff on a Level that I interprete as ... stuff everyone does have access to. Whatever. I mean - I'm not sure. I've tried to point my finger on stuff - ... another good example of what Jinx does that isn't good - well ..., think about ... instead of a 5 minute ad-block running an episode of Adam Ruins Everything.
The point is that people watching TV will eventually see those 5 minutes of Advertising and that time is basically ... flushed down the toilet. Half if not all of it is Bullshit to begin with, then it makes pretend that all is good in the world around us and that we aren't missing out on a damn thing! So to me that translates into people being caught up in a Jinx Tornado of stupidity.
Well - what I mean by 'Jinx' in particular thereby is some sort of implied magnetism that ties them to their screens, comfortable in that situation and thus sortof retarded in response to other things.

Maybe its good, maybe not - but what I experience in those regards is a huge contributor to how I pick my topics. And arguably its all subjective and so you know that some of the things I write aren't to be taken as Gospel.


Its a topic that bothers. Mostly though because I feel like it ... it made me feel ridiculous a lot. I would usually go and mention hype as one of the things that "Astair" does - so, Astair is the word I came up with to describe that whole of which hype, and ultimately also "Jinx", are/is a part of. And as you may know I'm not sure if its anything you "mere mortals" are actually perceiving.

I would think so. I couldn't think about it before I got into the Spirit - so I can't really ... relate.


So, why do I think that Anti-SJWs like Star Wars 7? I have to say that I do honestly not get it! I can get over the whole BvS thing. It isn't 'that' good, as that I would have the need to urge everyone to change their minds about it. And I have to apologize. But that isn't an "oops I made a mistake" type of apology. Whatever. Well ...

My theory is kindof simple. The issue is that Anti SJWs have a certain attitude. Like everyone does. Everyone has attitudes that lead them into making mistakes. So it technically was an "oops I made a mistake" type of apology. I've covered this a few times before; Just briefly touching on it or ... well, embracing every opportunity I had to make the topic bigger because I think it is one of those important topics thats easily being overlooked. But whats the point? I mean - we can't change ourselves. We can only improve upon ourselves. More or less. Lets just say it that way. There is no reason to believe that you are powerless about it.
Some of the things we have to discover about ourselves aren't pretty.
From a general perspective I could be either an SJW or an Anti-SJW, or rather an Anti-Anti-SJW; As - every human being is flawed. One way or another. If you asked the Theologia Deutsch, the conclusion is the very same one. It doesn't really get much deeper than that. The only answer to 'why' is because ... reasons! God made us that way; Its a form of perfection - kindof. OK, that goes deeper, but in essence - theres ones nature and not much one can do about it!

Our minds then help us to enter neutral space. Our nature becomes 'individuality', independence, fashion, style, behaviour, ... assets that accompany our minds; And as people get to communicate - there are many 'groups' that communicate. In your home town everyone might know everything about each other. In the next town however totally different things were known by everybody. And so every group has a tendency of missing the points of other groups.

The utter bullshit that can be found on the internet and has become some supplement to YouTube entertainers so has then spawned a certain type of cynicism that I want to compare to a superiority complex. Rather so does this however basically "swim on a Jinx" - and I basically think that no public ideology is free of that. This Jinx would then determine the motion of the whole while the individual goes with it 'while unaware of it'. Once this motion goes against something the individual believes in, this Jinx won't be strong enough to drag him along - eventually. Yea, drawing an image of debauchery and decadence is quite spot on to picture Jinxed people. Does being Jinxed equate to being brainwashed though? Kindof! I'd compare it to dirt.


There are however things, to get that out of the way, that just have an inherant effect on some people - uh, no shit?! Like, one day you turn on the internet (...) and watch some YouTube and you click on some Video and ... the one moment your world was all normal, all sweet, but the next moment ... you go like ... "What the fuck?!". Like, being "blasted" by some wall of ... Color and Sound that somehow suggests the weirdest things to being sexist or racist. And I'm not talking about any Anti-SJW video here. What however happens is that people like me would go like "...err, but that isn't racism nor sexism! ..." - and something starts moving inside - and what is it? Jinx?
Nope! This isn't Jinx! That is the point for this part!
It makes you realize that this is apparently what the world goes by now; And there is something terribly wrong about it!

So, to get into being Pro-SJW for a bit; No! No! No! No! No! Noooooo! I do not consent!

Raising awareness for stuff isn't the issue here! And so there is that problem, or "problem" with Anti-SJWs which is that they've been getting started on this "What is this Nonsense?" type of thing; And so this cynicism is sortof 'spreading' and as of that becoming a social group thing. From the Anti-SJW perspective it would pretty much 'that' standard; That if you aren't on board with their thing you're possibly spitting some BS thats easy to make fun of. There however is a much more critical stance towards certain materials; And from a similar stance I have declared Jeff Holiday to be a douchebag.


And same could be said or written about me. Matter of fact do I now feel more of a douchebag than before and thats because I feel like people have figured me out, sortof; So, saying that my flaws are known and that kindof sucks.

As I have been however pro SJW here - as of this alone I feel like a flow of thoughts that yet would force me to be anti-SJW again; And depending on the words I'm choosing - depending on how many words I have - that can either go too far again or not far enough or both at the same time. Except I maybe put it like: SJWs should be more humble and anti-SJWs shouldn't feel ashamed. Not yet at least.

How these mix ... feels rough. Trust issues, alignment issues, ... - while as conspiracy theory has it there were people on both ends that would sortof try to go against that. Uh ... yea. That happened.


I however want to stop putting people onto a negative side. That also includes members of the CCP. I even had a few things to write about that. Basically that goes well with what I'm writing about here - although, its ... I ... its a difficult topic. It gets less difficult when we're moving into politically less tense areas. At least as contemporary stuff is concerned. So, corruption in general maybe? I mean - we basically take it as something that is essentially guaranteed. And we all can I believe kindof relate to that; And that mostly in regards to our own normality. In an advanced setting we can also think about Characters like Trump, so, people that have something of a talent to pitch things to people. Eve fell to the Snake, Adam fell to Eve, Cain fell to ... pride? ... hmm. Cain offered Plants, Abel offered Animals. That always got me wondering. It also makes me feel less ashame of not being Vegan or Vegetarian.
And I could swear that eating Vegetarian gives me some empty feeling in my heart. But eating flesh doesn't make me feel all dandy either. Its a weird conflict that basically makes me want to not eat at all - but whenever I eat at McDonalds its getting really bad. I start to hate myself - and so I'll probably never eat at McDonalds again. Ever.

When it gets to positions of power the whole shitfest skyrockets because you're in a position of power and many people want stuff from you. We can on one side talk about Psychopaths - a.k.a. people that have lost or never really had a fondness for other peoples lives; And paranoia is there on the other side - where - the presence of an opposition isn't necessarily objectively better if "you are in charge". So there is a space, even, where outwardly terrible decisions are inwardly inevitable. So - thinking of Stalin for instance and how he handled people he worried might overthrow him; Sure there is that narrative that condemns them for the obvious crimes - but the leader is in a different position. To him its either him or the other guy that wants to take the chair.
What we see in China - like in regards to Tibet - seems like a whole different story; Is basically the same on a whole different scale. So, political dissent coming in from Tibet erodes the chinese peoples belief in their leadership, yada yada - "we know the stories" - "same ol same ol". We 'know' that the Chinese government operates that way. And many chinese people are complicit with it. Or just unaware of how 'not cool' that is.

I think this may even go deeper. I mean ... of course it does. But, stuff like ... it seems like Asian people value symbolism much more than we do. Maybe. Then there's the Mafia and what not. All sorts of stuff. And while we can't redeem anyone in there - there is a way of redemption for yet everybody. And everyone is held to the same standards there. And who knows? Maybe Kim Jong Un would be a pretty decent guy, were he not the leader of North Korea.


And who of us does not have "issues"?

So - Anti-SJWs. There is something ... as a blindness that basically goes like "there cannot be anything that is racist - period". Anything that is anti-racist is sortof qualifying as some sort of SJW BS. At least the impressions are there. And in the same vein do I believe that the reason Anti-SJWs like Star Wars 7 is because the common sense of the Mainstream Jinx compells them to! I didn't want to bring up 9/11, but I'm not yet on board with the whole "9/11 debunked" thing. But then there isn't really any real value to the discussion. There is that; And the next time where it matters is when the issue is something along the lines of 'absolute trust in the US government'. While we know the US government is shitty; It doesn't matter whether or not 9/11 is another turd in their yard.

Kindof. And not knowing what we don't know isn't anything we have power upon. Speculating about what we might not know ... well, my mission sortof fits into that. And nobody could imagine!

The issue with art on top of that is that objectivity is difficult. While I thought that the new Blade Runner is a stellar movie, it to me is also a good example of the ... depth, or plasticity, ... multi-dimensionality of that medium. There is no 1 Dimensional ladder from 0/10 to 10/10. I would think that the movie is paced well enough for people of all audiences to be sortof captured - much easier so than with a Mad Max Fury Road - but all that praise aside, in comparison to Ghost in the Shell for instance it is also kindof shallow. And that to me is objectively so, to a certain point. Ghost in the Shell has more ... "words" ... thrown around for the viewer to think about. More concepts that go into the active raw of the story. I mean, Blade Runner doesn't even really make or keep the mystery of Replicants having a Soul. Its basically the base of the plot. And this is sortof as far as it gets in terms of "mystery". Which is why I would call it a literally shallow movie - if that wouldn't sound so negative. It has its depth within the plot. Its more of a visual dive than a dive accompanied by pictures. This I think is objective enough that there shouldn't be much disagreement about these points. How what is good - that is the "purely" subjective part. And maybe you didn't like Scarlett Johansson. I really liked her in that role though. Perhaps ... the best she's been in so far. And the whitewashing ... ... hasn't the inventor/creator of Ghost in the Shell said himself that he had originally conceived her as a "caucasian "build""? What can I say? Its a minor detail and sure do ethnicities get jumbled up all the time. The Kingpin got "Blackwashed" ... or should we say "Blackdirted"? ... once upon a time ... "it happens all the time". I however think she did a stellar job as Major - enough so for me to accept her "as the Major".
#dontbowtoSJWs

And this hashtag goes even further. More relevant even when we are to talk about Religion. Because what is "SJW"ism ... there? Simple picture; Without the main criterium being 'the Truth' we get to something a little like 'today'. Where Religion is mostly derived from Emotional Standards. The whole anti-liquor/drugs thing. Nowhere in the Bible are drugs being condemned. So, where do these purity standards come from if not from a boldly emotional perception? The idea ... no matter how sober or flawed ... that drugs are bad and should therefore not be consumed. We can look further and talk about Marijuana. How many ... "probably archaic (unenlightened)" civilizations used it for/since ages ... but because our governments tell us its bad that seems to be compelling evidence to a lot of people for some reason to say that it factually is bad. "Its a gateway drug". What does that argument do? It tells you that if you are pro legalization you are putting people at risk to take heroin. But by that I would argue that Alcohol is a much more dangerous gateway drug. Before young people get to weed they get to beer.
So because person A was irresponsible with certain substances, person B should be no longer allowed to yield its benefits?
And so, what about Knives? Knives are a legitimate danger for everybody! Here we have an emotional "responsibility" to ban all knives, maybe even pens; We have "emotional incentives" to lock all of us into a rubber cell. That of course won't happen because its bullshit! Except there is some way of extracting a group of people from that generalization - a majority maybe (perhaps just by wealth) - that can be 'emotionally convinced' to respond to those incentives.
The "Social Justice" standpoint is obvious therein. Everyone who is ... "pro knives" or "pro Marijuana" is an irresponsible Monster! Facts don't matter; Emotions do!

And that is what arguably eroded (and erodes) not only Religion, not only Christianity, but also our global society. There so is this ... 'comprehensible rhetoric' that basically "principles" on emotions or a sense of ... what a clean, upright, proper civilized society should look like. On the one side you have a clean house led by responsible Christian parents and everyone is happy with not a single grain of dust anywhere to be seen; And on the other you see a dirty street with trash and grafiti some old newspaper page rust and a bunch of seringes; And now someone asking you: What do you want? I would say that 'actually' even those you would sort into the dirty picture would want to be in the clean one. And so we can go on and argue about it, as though it all came down to a simple choice. In this argument the choice is God. Because we do not only associate drugs to the picture but do so under the umbrella of it being a Christian message. Like on one side you have a cake and on the other pile of shit. What do you want? Well sorry, the Cake is that of a potheads birthday and the pile of shit was taken from the toilet of a Christian. OK, silly argument. But so is the other. There are plenty of Christian homeless people. "So arguably they must have done something wrong". If that doesn't ring the "Job" bell in any Christian - yea - go read your book!
This argument so goes even more absurd because there isn't one single 'fact' or 'reason' for me to believe 'now' that this 'clean picture' is exclusively a Christian domain.
There are people that actively 'chooose' to be in the Streets - but what does this choice really come down to? Whats the alternative? Or the alternatives? Getting a job? Well, sounds simple - but do you have an idea about how much more complicated this gets if you're homeless? If 5% of your life is a foundation for getting a job and the rest is basically already spent in the outskirts of society - yea, there still is this 'chance' that you would argue should be that individuals way; But so is the person free to say "fuck it!". Well knowing that that the life in the streets might be "less pretty" - but if those 5% equate to living in a small box ... I mean, its not like everyone with a slim 5% chance is magically going to be a super wealthy rich person because of "working spirit".

"Or is it?".

Emotional arguments! And yea, in some respect this is tolerable. You have your worldview and its not easy to embrace figures and facts that harshly contradict its pillars. As a Christian preacher you can't necessarily take care of those people that need help; As your responsibility is that to keep the Church running and so your main peers are those that have that luxury of a protected life that "can" go to church. Saying that even if you changed your mind it would change much.
But ... would it ... change almost nothing?

Life is dirty; And that because of the 'dome' underneath which we live. God could magically create jobs; Like, some buildings floating in the sky where people can go and flip some levers ... like a Casino just with guaranteed success ... but outside of that it pretty much comes down to our society; The physical reality.
And so the question is: What if more people turn towards God than there are jobs? And is each of those jobs guaranteed supreme wealth?

If your answer is 'yes' because 'faith' - I can get behind that but the effect isn't going to be immediate. And it is also important what kind of faith we are talking about! If you are Jehovahs Witness and we chose to go with Seventh Day Adventists - that wouldn't work out for you, would it?


Yea because SDAs are arguably false because so and so - but that is like every argument between Christians ever!


But so, Star Wars 7. Art is subjective. We could argue that how we rate movies is an emotional choice. Blade Runner 2049 vs Ghost in the Shell. Technically we individually are objective, at least to the point we can, but this objectivity gets to be based on experiences which however are what makes these opinions subjective. If you are like me you'd have enjoyed Ghost in the Shell a lot! And by 'like me' I only mean those "cognitive receptors" that ... go well with that movie.
It ... "tickles more in my brain" ... sotospeak - and if you're ... not tickled that way I can see how it are just a bunch of moving colored images in comparison to which Blade Runner 2049 is an infinitely better movie. Which is another thing that goes into it; The ... "gender of forms". Ghost in the Shell has feminine shapes whereas Blade Runner is more masculine. More spartan, more dirty, more edgy. And if that resonates better with you, Blade Runner 2049 is objectively better than Ghost in the Shell.
Similarly can I see how you would prefer SW7 if you were really mad about the Prequels. To be honest: I figured in about as much - err ... regarding what SW7 is going to be. I don't even need to finish this argument for the "more educated ones" to understand where I'm going with this. SW7 largely capitalizes on the 'same look' of Episodes 4-6; Where the big difference in style between those and the prequels was arguably the largest ... contributor to the Prequels being not wholeheartedly accepted as "good Star Wars". Jar Jar Binx ... is just the dot on the i. A lot also go to rant against the Podracing - which to me is the "most apparent" symptom of this case of dissonance. So yea, I'm more accepting of the "story telling" aspect. Not how it is told, but what is told. What is told is the story of Anakin Skywalker; And round about that ... "oh boy". People that got hyped on "Bad Buy Vader" would look at Anakin and say "Fag" - which follows the same vein as: "The Death Star could not possibly have had a weakspot "because ..."". What people seem to miss is that this tiny vent isn't pointed on with huge neon signs for everyone to see. It is hidden away; With a lot of turrents protecting it. Just sayin'!

So did the prequels not "feel" like Star Wars because it has been visually so different. Thematically we were presented with a person we on one side had to sympathize with while on the other side that 'sympathic person' would "have had" certain issues making him susceptible to the dark side. There so is the point that if you gava Anakin something even remotely resembling a spine - he possibly wouldn't have fallen. Ever! And that would lead to some really silly silly silly silly silly silly silly on screen argument for how he became Vader! (The higher you think of Anakin, the more silly it comes accross)

But so yea - there goes a lot of information into that. Because I really loved Star Wars I have memories (a.k.a. information) - and as I understand the story being told these informations are molten together. Its one cohesive whole. As Lucas liked to say it: It rhymes. "It makes sense". And while I am "constantly" bombarded with Anti SW-Prequels sentiment I'm forced to acknowledge the flaws of the movie; So, twisting my head to look at the prequels in this way, going to think: OK, what if it is that bad? Could it be that bad? "What is bad about them?". I can however not pry the story from whatever I'm finding; And the story, as said, is cohesive to me. I mean, given the complicated base issues with the Character. So I do not have this much of a dissonance regarding the "meaningfulness" of the prequels - and so the visual resemblances of SW7 don't do much for me either! Its just sugarcoating.
The Super Deathstar makes no sense because if the beam would travel at Light Speed, the base is either within the Solar System of the Planets it is firing at or it would take those beams years to ever arrive.
That is one of the things that comes to mind when comparing SW7 to SW1 (Phantom Menace). Arguably the two movies are equally ... non-stellar. The prequels spend a lot of time in trivial scenery; The big climax of Episode 1 is just one arbitrary fight between the Federation and some planet they occupy and the stakes never really get to be that high while by Episode 3 it is already inevitable that the Jedi are going to loose; ... and so all I can assemble in hindsight regarding the Prequels is that they could have been done better. For Episode 1 maybe more exposition about the Jedi Culture and the Political situation ... instead of the ... ... ... final battle; And secondly the Podracing segment; As the final battle is cinematically really not all that cool. It has wide willows which I liked - but the rest ... meh. So - what I'm getting at is that I can here see the similarities to Episode 7 - saying that its the first episode of a trilogy that leads up to something bigger to come. But the fight between Maul and the two Jedi ... is to me still better than anything we've seen in Episode 7. And the submarine segment of Episode 1 is sortof on par with the monster segment where Han Solo shows up. Both segments are sortof pointless; And while in the monster segment "more shit is happening" - its still not really ... hmm, the submarine segment 'does' more if you want to entertain the Darth Binx idea. So while every situation in Episode 1 sortof has a point; All the points Episode 7 seems to make are fanservice. And the whole R2D2 subplot ... ahwr ... sigh ... ... ... ... .

So - I can see how I'm biased against SW7 because my "prequel dissonance" has been at a minimum. Rather so did the hate that was thrown at the prequels resonate negatively with me; All the social drama round about it has nothing to do with the movies themself; While SW7 to me turned out to be just barf. Thats the 'average line' to me - the - general baseline for me to derive my in-depth oppinions from.

So, to me, when I hear that the prequels were bad - I can get that; But I cannot 'recognize' this statement 'to the depth' of my own oppinion about those movies. Its an issue of how the story is told vs what is being told. So I can see how my position, in the big and broad, is a weak one as my point is pretty much just "that" it has a story I can "sortof" wrap my head around - ... at least that is how I judge my own position as in the eyes of someone who is a "Prequel Hater" - and so there is 'subjectivity'. Like, what is the objective value of the story told? (*caugh* Mary Sue *caugh*)
And from that perspective, Episodes 7-9 are in this weird spot where as far as a cohesive all-over Star Wars Canon is concerned the entire issue of how "the chosen" brings "balance to the force" isn't answered; And I think this is where Episodes 8 and 9 are already built on a flawed foundation. Sure some way can be found to somehow explain that in the context; Like turning Rey into the chosen one ... which so only continues the confusion ... ... ... .

And so do SW7 fans just lack depth and context? Kindof? Well - sure, in my oppinion, they do - but thats not the point I'm wanting to make. It factors into that, strongly, while the thing itself is more about how common sense works in that regard. That is really the issue. So - whether SW7 was now good or bad is first of all everyones personal "choice"; And 'objectively', with Star Wars fans, it wasn't good at all. But those end up being 'subjective' oppinions as their context/comparison to the Episodes 1-6 is subjective. So there are also those who initially liked the prequels (it was generally received well at first) and then maybe swung around lateron as being practically pried away from what they liked about them; But the basic "cognitive material" is still there, based on which they 'judged' Episode 7. So - my oppinion, or whatever. So saying that what makes the prequels good is 'in the subjective' already while the objective differences between prequels and original trilogy take episode 7 closer to the originals. So, "technically", SW7 is the better film? This is how I can relate to someone who liked SW7. I genuinely can. Some cheesy/spoofy (whatever) Sci-Fi action with cool images ... OK! But in comparison you can see my angle to the whole and realize how that doesn't amount to 'anything' for me.


Now I don't think that this is boldly an anti-SJW thing. But as for that group in particular I do strongly believe that the objective negativity that is associated to the prequels makes it difficult for them to say that the prequels were better - while under the line all objectivity and subjectivity is a matter of intellectual attachment to the content. I mean, whenever Jar Jar Binx is brought up that tells as much as that the person hating on it is incapable of accepting a story that contains an annoying character. Like "why would you do that?" (writing a story with an annoying Character (*caugh* Kylo Ren *caugh*)).

As of this I would go and say that anti-SJWs in general have that problem that they themselves perpetuate; Which is basically their standards of Objectivity. I think we can see ... something underlining my assessment when comparing Kyle Kulinsky to anti-SJWs. Kyle does mostly political content and his responsibilities rest accordingly. Kyle isn't a SJW; He's in a position though where that is hard to tell. He isn't an anti-SJW when judging by the context however. Err ... I would say that Kyle is a rationalist - like everyone on the planet maybe - but SJW vs anti-SJW issues barely come up. In comparison to me; Coming from an anti-Trump sentiment him being anti-Hillary was odd at first. Well, I didn't know what he did previously. What I mean is that we have different sentiments and backgrounds - and "who" we are is generally revealed in context to certain things. So - with Kyles association to the TYT network and how TYT is conceived by anti-SJWs we could go and look at Kyle as a SJW. That ... ... is just to loosely lead up to the main point of this argument which is that there is no 'objective' connection between Kyle and anti-SJWism which in turn involves a different mentality in regards to certain things, starting with the things that he/they are being concerned about. OK, this is possibly hard to get behind if you don't already know the/some figures to think about.
So - talking about TYT then. ...

Anti SJWs don't discern on which side of the political spectrum you stand. As an SJW. You can be liberal or conservative. Kyle is liberal, TYT is liberal - SJWs are ... "liberal". Liberal anti-SJWs however sync up with Kyles perspective which is mostly round about 'progressiveness'. So, feminists liked Hillary, but liberals/progressives liked Bernie; And that because Bernies politics bring more objectively progressive items to the table than just that of a female president. Conservatives and Liberals so however end up being in disagreement - and so do certain issues between the political sides just disappear in that gap; Effectively.
The point is the point. If the point is being a BS watchdog - you'll shit all-over the political spectrum. So, thats the thing - people assemble around it - and because of that there isn't a perceivable gap ... . It took some work to even just make a case for its existence; And whether it is objectively a thing might be debatable still.


As the whole case I've been making here is sortof weak. I'm using a flimsy concept to draw certain lines that sort different people into certain groups that don't really have any real life meaning. Lets just say. That gap there does arguably not exist and is rather just an item that contributes to the "SJW confusion". So, Liberals and Conservatives mix which sortof drags Liberal anti-SJWs into the Conservative anti-SJW boat as far as SJWs are concerned; Which otherwise is why liberal anti-SJWs regard them as the 'regressive Left'. And while there may be a gap that is objectively there - the anti-SJW "compound" exists around bridges that are being built shaping something of a consent.

What we then get to is that liberal anti-SJWs are socializing with conservative anti-SJWs and in that motion the liberals are going to distance themselves from the SJW side - and conservatives make their conservative points while liberals make their liberal points and the viewer eventually ends up picking a side. Sortof. However is this also an 'active' move that 'shoves' SJW perspectives away; So, there is "that group" that anti-SJWs distance themselves from - and whatever common grounds there are is turning into an abyss.
This somehow translates into an imbalance between 'male and female' (in esoteric terms) and fosters its own kind of paranoia that leans against the right which also doesn't happen without a respective reaction from the right. And to add the cream on top: Ask yourself, dear random reader: How much of all these struggles/tensions have been aware to you? I could make the case of some fictional afro-american US citizen who could enter this whole via any route. For this case we don't want to give him a different ideology per case. I can at the very least see how he could enter via the Black Lives Matter side; Not understanding what other people dislike about it - or why it is so hard for some people to just jump over the gap and acknowledge it for its symbolic meaning ... because its symbolic meaning is different there. The very same person could stumble upon Kyle Kulinsky - and while the story for that dude is basically the same - it turns out really different in the bigger whole.


(I like Return of the Jedi the best because endor is a beautiful locations, I liked the Ewoks as I liked the Goonies, the battle of Endor is one of the best space-battles ever and the standoff of Luke vs. the Emperor (not Vader, but we can include Vader)) as one of the things that really stuck with me. This is probably not more profound stuff as that of someone who enjoyed Episode 7, but what makes Episode 6 that much better for me is that it jives with what came before it. So eventually that if you think of Luke Skywalker as the first 'grey Jedi' the whole scene on Dagobah ... where Luke sees his own face behind Vaders Mask ... hmm. I mean: Luke Skywalker is getting filled with feelings of anger against Vader; That is the simple interpretation of what happens there. The less simple one establishes on that, while implying a conclusion on top of that which isn't as 1-Dimensional as: "That is Dark side, so I must repent". So he is in this moment where the Dark Side starts to creep up in him; And that leads up ... wow ... to the Episode 6 finale. Up unto this we can see Lukes saber turning green, him wearing darker clothes, being on something like a cruisade - pretty dark in a way - up to the point where he stands before the Emperor ... and well. I'm a bit overthrown by the fact that previously I hadn't thought this out that much. The old story simply was this idea of Luke coming to an understanding of the powers of the 'Dark Side' without actually falling for its 'evil'. So are we generally having that picture of the Light Side Jedi that are anti-emotional, reserved, objective, clear, rational, sober - or perhaps arrogant instead of objective, "for instance"; So as context to what drives a Jedis "fear" essentially regarding the Darkness. This is cultivated by the Sith that fully give into their emotions; So does Palpatine for instance require Anakin to slay children, so, possibly, as a way to create strong emotions; And even so in a controlled way. So, wrath and anger - as it is being said - as the 'tools' the Sith are using to increase their aptitude with the Force. Fear might be the worse, I feel; It gives a Sith something of an edge in terms of caution. They embrace the fear - they worry that a Jedi might come to destroy them - but use this fear as a means to get even stronger. Luke then however realized this; While - however, maybe Luke was just the better person - recognizing that he could use these without comitting any atrocities. So, instead of 'forcing' these dark feelings into submission ... err. As a plain visual context we could go and say that there may have been factors like his determination to defeat Vader in context to the injustices he seeks to avenge within his consciousness of what the justice is he wants to fight for - so a given causality that led him to this conclusion; Or say he was just being the better person that made this causality turn out the way it did to begin with. ... err ... "under construction this is" ... . But yea. So: With a spirit of justice he however conquered those dark feelings, rather than shutting them down. So the entire light vs dark side conflict that the Emperor introduced to Luke was basically "beneath" Lukes status in relativity to the Force. He had no dilemma about attacking Vader - the goal however had been achived as Vader was defeated and then striking Vader down was nowhere in Lukes interest. The fight was over - as of which we can only assume that he 'felt' that it was over. The Force basically told him that he wouldn't have to go anymore and defeat the Emperor; That Anakin would go and do so as a consequence of him fulfilling the ideology of defying the dark side. So - ... Luke had to trust the Force in that Anakin/Vader would basically do the rest. Thus basically closing the cycle. Episode 8 can still address these things - or 9 - so OK; Here some moderation from me. So Luke possibly being on the side of the Galaxy not being ready for it or some other problem where Rey is a totally different thing that basically is to destroy the remainders of the 'Dark Side'. Basically saying that Rey is just a weapon that strikes on is own and isn't relevant to the "Balance of the Force" side of things. Its only an effect of the Cosmic Balance reacting to the conclusion of Episode 6. The Force as tool to undo the physical remainders of Evil - sotospeak. Where 'physical' includes the last remaining/in-charge Sith; Who isn't part of the 'balance of the Force' arc because the Legacy of the Jedi that perpetuates the misconceptions that lead to the Dark Side is no more. So are the remaining Sith the only ones still aware of this Light vs. Dark Side "Bullshit" - and it isn't in Lukes hands to do something about it. So is Rey basically the drought that comes upon the Sith. With that, well, Episode 7 is ... less bad. It fits in, ... and is redeemed because the case of 'false direction' is.
The case of false direction is what I rest my case upon. Quite actually. I have issues with Indiana Jones 4 that are a matter of false direction. It takes away Christianity from the Franchise. I wrote of it before. By now however, ... well - I could generalize and say that I was disappointed. I certainly have been biased - ... err. Well. How was it? I had my own story; I had "sent it out"; Same with Dragonball - and apparently those things arrived but they wouldn't let me in and made up some alternative instead and I wouldn't have anything against them. Maybe my story was weird - maybe mixing Tomb Raider with Indiana Jones wasn't a good idea - and who was I? In my mind I was supposed to be there somewhere; And I don't think that this got me into "pretending". There was no pretending. It were passions - as I've always had - while all the tools I had were all the tools I had. I wasn't in any position; J.Lo might have changed that; Thats how it would have worked out - and whether or not it would have because of my maturity; ... or lack thereof ... well; ... is that the argument? Not for me. For me the main argument is that there is this "Unification Thing" - and so if my position was weak then because I was corresponding to the wrong people. What is the critical mass? Actually it is 2. That is how it is in the Bible. So, if J.Lo had been with me - what fucks would we have had to give? But if she wasn't with God - what foundation would I have?

It would be extremely shaky because 'actually' I had none and would first have to get somewhere; And if J.Lo so wouldn't be 'in' - what incentives would others have to turst me in it? So the whole thing would possibly just evaporate - including a huge scene from J.Lo humiliating me in public. Or is the fault mutual - and I had to ... still "get there"? ... which was the wrong way?

There certainly was a given Naivity to my ways. And at the base I do here speak of emotional responses of myself. What did I dislike? Why did I dislike it? How did this dislike manifest? One of my earliest conclusions was that my ideas just were objectively better; And I would hold what I perceived to those standards. One of the bigger worries was that what "they" did would be in any concurrence with mine. Call it a superiority complex. Its my issue - and in this case, there is my issue with Star Wars. Its a matter of what it should be - in my oppinion - what it 'in my oppinion' should be - ... err ... and what I was eventually missing was whether or not it is just that as moving forward from the perspective of expecting it to be inherantly wrong.
And this expectation still sortof stands.
I mean - can Indiana Jones 4 be redeemed if an Indiana Jones 5 could somehow right the wrongs? Maybe not if we're asking Harrison Ford. Technically however yes. Sure. ...)



CNS.2017.10.28|15:59



So we can say that things are even. SJWs reject anti-SJWs and reverse the way; And everyone is jiving with different things. Thats just the way it is. But also are not all the things that people jive with harmless. As of that are there instances in both communities where people have come forth from one, distanciating themselves from it or something therein. So, Thunderf00t as someone who left the "skeptic community" although technically ... - and then there's Laci Green; Where in both instances there has also been a certain backlash. But when thinking of feminism there are more "I'm no longer a feminist ... and here's why"s. There are examples of Ex-Nazis and Atheists and ... such, whereby people just come to a cognition that "redeems" them from respective errors. That doesn't say that all Nazis are evil. It compares Right Wing Extremism to Feminism, Religion and all other Systems of Belief - saying that there are errors within them that then cause people to distanciate themselves. And I would say that this wouldn't occur if these errors would just be there loosely.

Other people then come to speak of Echo-Chambers; Though in other words we could speak of ideological islands and argue in bounds of some flow or stream of ideas. The flow of ideas ... . Lets change that. Not Islands. What ... uhm, ... knots? There is some big flow, its ... "common sense" or "the norm" in terms of ... our individual ability to exist outdoors and share a reality with other people. So, that when in a fast food restaurant to line up at the end of the line. That we don't go around punching people. Traffic, ... that is more advanced. Here we need knowledge of certain mechanisms; So, roads aren't inherantly dangerous but knowing of cars makes it a bit more so. But anyhow - at the end of the day this is also what allows us to communicate with other people.
I would say that Feminists or SJWs come accross as obnoxious because they occupy this 'common space' and comment on how we should do what. Hugh Mungus comes to mind. Well, the fact that she could do that and that all those men had a genuinely scared look on their face is also worth something!

So - I don't want to say or know whether it is an act or not. Of her. I can totally imagine that this is how some women 'do' have to feel. Well, maybe try Kekistan!?


That is like the logical conclusion. But - the real question was: Where and Why? Thinking of a great many ways in which Kekistan isn't any answer - or where male Feminists could have an impact. Within the Ku Klux Klan for maybe? Or the government of the United Arab Emirates? More reasonable then: Biker Gangs; But that is also assuming that all Bikers are Mysogenists. Management? Government in general?

...



So ... what 'real Feminists' want is an end to 'the' Patriarchy; Which I would assume is the entire structure of all governments on the planet. And just to thrown something entirely else into the mix, what if - in the Final Fantasy XV Universe, we lived in Niflheim? Final Fantasy XV ...

What is it like to be a "Niflheimian"? Well, in the story it goes on to the point where Niflheim has invaded Insomnia, so - they are clearly the invaders and they do so with their machinery; While ... oh my memory - Eos? There's a lot of nature however. The protagonist then also refers to these soldiers as ... err ... "Niff|"??? "Niffe" in german, which is like saying 'Nazi'. Its these terms onto which we can project a lot of negativity. The inherant evil sotosay. This Unit is however produced by something. The ordinary 'Nazi Soldier' was produced by the German economy of its time. While here the term is referring to a Unit, the Unit reflects the whole it is produced by.

The entire library of Final Fantasy if not Squaresoft/Enix games (I know) seems like a comment on that relationship between Technology and Humanity/Nature - ... and while that had never been in any conflict with my ideology ... err, which is also pro technology; I now have to see that there are in-deed conflicts. Like, hidden in plain sight. More or less.

The real problem to me is a lack of 'common awareness'. So, what do we 'mean' when we say: "I am Kekistan"? What do we know or understand when we hear 'Donald Trump', 'Hillary Clinton', 'Vladimir Putin' or 'Dalai Lama'? Is racial superiority a thing?

What is racial supremacy? Lets think of an englishman that had been out there discovering africa. He brought civilization to those people who in comparison existed in primitive ways. And now the question goes on to say: Why did cultures only flourish where 'white people' had been? Is it genetic? I would say ... yes. And that in very specific manners.


It is ... well, is there a word for it? We can in this sense however exchange the terms of genetics and culture. So we might assume that it is a cultural phenomenon. That now the primitive people have a gap to bridge, in terms of cultural awareness. So, you can educate those that are old enough, but these still carry their "primitive roots" - so they are like 50:50 modernized - at best. Social connections to the "regressive area" might drag that down a little. But so - we give them tools and know how so to counter the regression - but at any rate, that doesn't change the fact that ... I mean, this type of influence could make certain things worse ... uh, ... lets start with concrete. Can they make it? Or does it need to be imported? ... the Philippines is a funny little country in that regard. You can literally see it everywhere; The traces of "how to do this and that"s - to varying degrees and forms of cultural adaptation.
On the other end of the spectrum we have to think of the afro-american, who we assume has more problems due to prejudice than due to genetics. So in a society of equal rights that grows into more and more condensed living conditions, autonomy is somewhat guaranteed as it is necessitated. Here now race doesn't matter, as "old norms" that down't work in this frame of co-existence are discarded anywhere.
Genetically now what matters is the aspect of the brain that is ... well, our collective memory in a sense. So, if hunting is a skill, there are certain features that make a good hunter brain, sotospeak - and those traits will be handed over to the next generation; Possibly. Well, we have variety. A tribe of hunters isn't just hunters. Language, habits - a lot of factors plus their given environment weigh into it; While those that could survive and procreate, well - did just that. And sons used to inherit the business of their parents ... more? Lets call it a 'fingerprint of nature'. What stands out is certainly that someone who grew up in an aristrocacy has learned fundamentally different standards than some tribesman of somewhereunderthestars and comes with a fundamentally different background of resources and social aptitudes and connections; That is even different to the peasants of his own kind. So - "what do 'they' know?" - right? Well - a lot more than you think, maybe - like, in some sense or quite actually does aristrocacy come with the burdain of aptitudes. Well ... err, ... "the more you know" ... the more you 'can' know - and knowledge is power. So does the high society of a culture, well - kindof. I mean; There is a lot of bullshit I think that blurrs the lines - but in essence culture comes with an economy and education/knowledge in a "homegrown" way, ... so - the success of the steam engine for instance is due to the cultures ability to construct them. To make use of that knowledge. And so there are schools - which again is a matter of common sense, "knowledge density" - ... well, a variety of things such as the education level of "peasants" sotospeak. So, from outskirts to capitals. Aristocrats were something part of such a 'norm' - something the society knows of, something the society produces in a sense - while there being something that has a certain part in that societies operations.


YouTube celebrities are now however the closest to 'true representatives of society' that we've got. They have nominated themselves to come out and speak on the internet, and we've elected them to continue to do so. Sortof. I mean - PewDeePie might be not meeting those standards, but if he'd start sporting racist ideas I don't think the response would be all that great!

What they reflect are people that watch YouTube beyond your average cat video - and in a sense its a global network of people and their concerns. And whether or not TYT is more stupid than your average news Network is debatable too. Same shit? Well, in real life we usually get informed from a lot of different sources. So, to me TYT is something I only watch sometimes. And - interesting shit. To me it comes out of boredom - in some quasi-relationship with the way things are. It doesn't stand there as perfect; But they have those kinds of news that I would like to hear. Kindof. Not like those are anything good - its just that cut of whats happening that 'entertains' me. In a negative way?
I mean, what is "it"? Fake News? The Illuminati? Shadow Government? Triad? Aliens? Demons? What is that which is wrong? Where can we turn to and say "its OK!"? So at this point it is all nothing but oppinion - and if you don't get all your information from just one source; ... its got to be OK! Right?

Isn't YouTube only 'one' source? ... But yea - what sources are there? What is 'not' corrupt? How convenient that TYT all of a sudden decides to talk about mens fashion while US troops are doing some nonsense in Syria that wouldn't be received too well. Weird how the Comey trial was that huge media event that everyone was looking at while shit happened elsewhere. Where then a few days later Kyle has to say "Oh, by the way - this happened" - and done.
What am I talking about? Lets ...


(I think ..., something like that. Something about US supporting ISIS was around ... - ... "US vs. Russia")

see. Is it even true? How can we tell? RT at that time was speaking about the 'US Coalition' and things seemed to get real fucked up real fast. And nobody talks about it! But what happened?


I don't know! I can't tell if this is real! This doesn't seem real! How can it be that fucked up?


And what is Kekistan 'now'? Is it a symbol created just to piss people off? Just so that some people can get behind a label that can be presented to the public as Right-Wing/Nazis? And as far as the SJW perception is concerned, Kekistan is just that!




One stage deeper however the reality of an idea like that comes down to the people that are involved. And that is kindof obvious. And in the example of Kekistan we can see what so happens to labels. They wanted it to be so, others showed it to he elsewhat - its like in that Star Trek Voyager episode named 'Nemesis'. I've mentioned it a few times already. Which exalts me to say, *caugh* *caugh*, something about Starfleet Education. In that vein now you can't really do any wrong. Like how Star Wars Episodes 7-9 could technically not be failed by anyone. That is to say, well, I mean ... individuality. That we have differences. And where they exist we must respect them. Yada yada. But there are dangers that come with an ill or exaggerated interpretation thereof.

What we expect of others, as what we allow others to expect from ourselves - that should all only ever come in favour of "making us work". ~ish? Now is social identity also about the 'we' - the knowing who 'we' are - that bit of ones self that determines its belonging to something. So, what we individually know - as true - of some compound, so we can attach to and identify with something. "Brotherhood" is one of those terms fiction resorts to in some instances; "of Nod" (lol, Nod as in 'to nod'?! (affirmative motion of head)).






CNS.2017.10.30|19:27