So yesterday was pretty awesome

I’m on a three-day mini vacation, and spent most of yesterday on the road.  I did, however, livestream the President and the Vice-President’s swearing in (and then turned it off, missing Jackie Evancho’s performance of our national anthem…will definitely watch it tonight).

It was amazing.  I felt so overwhelmingly proud to be an American, and thought of all the whiny leftists that got totally triggered that day, like this woman (who obviously staged this, knowing the cameras were focused on her):


 

Hehehe. Utterly hilarious.

Why does everything have to be political?

Way back in November, I was reading this article over on Breitbart about how ESPN has lost thousands of subscribers in October:  ESPN Loses Over Half a Million Subscribers and one question popped into my head.  Why does everything have to be political?

There are probably many reasons why ESPN is losing so many subscribers.  It might not all be due to politics, but in the article, the ESPN ombudsman stated that the network had been tilting too far to the left lately:

ESPN Ombudsman Jim Brady, admitted that the network lurched way too far to the left in recent years, alienating many viewers.

I don’t watch sports at all, but I know how sports fans feel, if they are indeed canceling their subscriptions over the political content.  It’s SPORTS, people!  Why are they talking about politics at all?  These days, the left has to inject their opinions in everything – music, movies, books, magazines, TV shows, fashion, and video games.  Sports was the last thing they hadn’t ruined, and then Colin Kapaernick had to take a knee and now they’ve gone overboard.  It’s absolutely everywhere.

Take magazines for example.  I love reading fashion magazines.  I’ve been reading them since I was a kid, when my mom bought me Sassy and ‘TEEN after I had ‘become a lady.’  I had a political blog about eight years ago that I kept private because I was afraid of being harassed by liberals, and back then I noticed the overwhelming bias.  This year, the top fashion magazines made a big deal out of endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in their November issues.  Vogue did it, Glamour did it, and Elle probably did, although I have not read that issue.  Vogue made a big deal out of never having endorsed a Presidential candidate before, and that because of the “historic” nature of this one, they just had to.  Vogue put Michelle Obama on the cover of the December issue and I canceled my iPad subscription (too late, because I have already paid for that issue).

These magazines never have anything nice to say about Republicans.  Sure, Vogue did a piece on Sarah Palin before the 2008 election (it appeared in the February 2008 issue) and it wasn’t too bad, but their tone changed once she was selected as McCain’s running mate.  Vogue has also done a piece on South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (who has been nominated as the ambassador to the UN).

The September 2012 issue of Elle had a nasty hit-piece on Republican women.  I think Marie Claire has done a few pieces on Republican women, but the majority of anything mentioning Republicans or conseravtives is overwhelmingly negative.  It’s fashion – why are there any political articles in these magazines?  Most of them are cringingly bad anyway.

I will never, ever forget this little feature in an issue of Marie Claire.  I will have to look through my archives to find out which issue it was, but it was a few years ago.  It was a list of possible talking points to use when at a party.  Among them was a talking point about gun rights.  The suggested talking point was this (paraphrased):  How does having a gun in my thong drawer keep me safe?

Really?  Well, let me see.  First of all, unless your thongs are all kept in your nightstand drawer, having your gun there isn’t such a great place, because it’s kind of out of reach.  Seconds matter.  I think that it’s only logical to have your gun as close as possible.  And a thong drawer?  Jesus.  I don’t own any butt floss.  Why not a sock drawer?  Furthermore, the gun is only useful if you know how to use it.  I don’t own a gun and I have never actually used one, but I would like to someday.  Gun rights are very important to me.  I’m short and unfit, and even if I were fit, I’m still a short woman, and can use all the help I can get.

Of course, this liberal bias is everywhere.  During the Bush years, artists like Tori Amos and Pink would write songs about how much they hated Dubya.  Madonna would shriek “fuck you George” at her concerts.  Dita Von Teese tried to rape a George Bush look-a-like for a music video by Agent Provocateur.  Green Day wrote a whole album about how horrible rednecks are, or whatever.  And who could forget all of those horrible, ridiculous, one-sided anti-war movies?  Most of them flopped, so maybe it is possible to forget them.

But back to the point.  Sports isn’t even safe now.  You cannot escape the liberal crap.  They push their agenda and their opinions on absolutely everything.

Sex and violence

So I was mucking about on r/books and I found this interview with the author of the Lemony Snicket series.  Apparently, the guy is going to publish a book about a sex-obsessed teenage boy, and it’ll be published in August of this year.

In it, there is the obligatory “how do you feel about your young readers accidentally picking up this sexy book” question and the obligatory “like, omigod why are people freaking out over sex when violence is so much worse?” answer.

Yes, violence is horrible and definitely not for kids, but sex isn’t for children either.  I am sick and tired of seeing this idiotic argument from authors (and others).

Over the duration of writing my first novel (tentatively titled Nemesis), I’ve wrestled with the amount of sex and sex abuse in the story.  Is it too graphic?  Is it too over the top?  Is it gratuitous?  Is it cringey?  I was originally going to publish it and market it as YA, but I don’t think I can anymore.  Maybe New Adult, or something.  But it’s pretty raw, and I would never, ever in a million years hand over my novel to a twelve year old kid.  No, no, no, no, NO.

It’s a shame and a tragedy that our society is becoming increasingly numb to acts of violence.  This recent indicent of the schizophrenic white teenager being kidnapped and tortured by four black people is proof of that.  There’s great swaths of our society that thinks this shit is just badass and/or hilarious.

The same goes for sex.  Back when I was twelve, I wouldn’t have ever entertained the thought of having sex with anyone.  Now it’s common place for tweens to have sex.  At least, that’s the impression I get.  There’s certainly a lot of people who think there’s nothing wrong with someone that young being sexually active.

Here is the difference between violence and sex.  Violence is objectively wrong.  Hardly anybody will disagree with that, except for sociopaths.  But sex is more complex.  It is a vital part of our beings, of ourselves.  We wouldn’t be here without it.  Sex is important.  It’s not something to be taken lightly, and yet our sex-obsessed society treats it as if it’s just nothing.  As if it’s no more significant than going clubbing or playing a game of catch in your backyard.

Movies, TV shows and books often glamorize promiscuity and casual sex.  That’s done a lot of harm in our society.  STDs, single motherhood (which leads to a lot of other issues), broken families (ditto), depression, etc.

Did it ever occur to these people that some people feel differently about kids and sex?  They just seem so horrified that anyone would be concerned about their nine year old reading about some guy who can’t keep it in his pants.  And did it occur to them that one can be concerned about both sex and violence?

I think this is part and parcel of the progressive’s plan to eventually normalize pedophilia.  As I’ve noted previously, they’re already working on it.  This stupid faux outrage will continue, and people like me will be vilified for being concerned about it.

About last night

Ugh.  I’ve already mentioned one idiot actor on this blog, and now I’m about to foul it up with another one.  So yes, everyone is talking about fake Margaret Thatcher’s ridiculous, hammy performance at some stupid awards show last night.  Boo hoo, actors are sooooooo vilified!  By the way, back in November I wrote a post about how the left politicizes everything and I think it’s very relevant at the moment, but I will finish it and post it tomorrow or something.

There’s a lot I could say about what fake Margaret said, but I’m just going to post Mark Levin’s remarks on the subject (h/t Chicks on the Right):

Meryl Streep said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was targeting reporters and intercepting their communications; she said nothing when Obama’s Justice Department was arming Mexican drug lords, resulting in murder; she said nothing when Obama’s IRS was threatening and intimidating private citizens because of their viewpoints; she said nothing when Obama’s NSA was gathering a massive amount of telephonic activity by American citizens; she said nothing when Obama threw Israel over the cliff at the UN; she said nothing when Obama’s policies (or lack thereof) contributed to the growth of ISIS and its genocide, rape, slavery, and torture; etc.
Streep is a liberal ass and partisan who should stick to what she knows — memorizing words written by people smarter than her and then repeating them when directed to do so. She’s incapable of basic reasoning and comprehension. She also disrespected her industry and the viewing public by using the Golden Globe Awards’ ceremony to burp up her baloney, as if what she had to say was so urgent and momentous.
And micdrop.

Wow, the rage I feel is just horrific right now.

cunt

I saw this online just a few minutes ago.  First, it was at Michelle’s Mirror.  Then I saw that Michelle Malkin mentioned it on her Twitter feed.  It has not gone viral yet, but it should.

This shit is why I don’t vote Democrat.  I never have, and I never will.  So to address this hideous bitch’s points one by one.

Shithole?  Mexico is a fucking shithole, bitch.  A third of Mexico’s population has already invaded our country.  THAT’s a shithole.  Whatever city in rural America that utterly offended you so could not possibly be anywhere as bad as Mexico.  That’s the first thing.  The second thing is that your precious cities and suburbs aren’t much better for many reasons, but I’ll list two:  pollution and crime.

White people are far from being the only violent, misogynist ones.  Plenty of blacks and Hispanics are just as violent.  In fact, and I really hate to admit this, but blacks commit the vast majority of crime in this entire nation.  Chicago may as well be a fucking war zone given the mind-boggling amount of gun violence there (and Chicago is a gun-free city…good job, morons).

Big corporations don’t want to open call centers, factories, etc in the US because it costs too much money to operate.  There’s a shitload of environmental regulations and other regulations one has to go through just to get approved to build something, and then there’s the business of running it, including the hiring of a workforce and how much it would cost to keep the damn lights on.  I know that most corporations are run by idiotic bigots like you, but I highly doubt it’s because they’re all, “eeeewww, racists!”  It’s more like, “it costs too much money to build a factory in the middle of nowhere.”

Oh, I get it.  This rancid shitstain wants the entire country to be run by progtards.  These rural cities need progressives on their city councils so that every single aspect of their lives is dictated to by sanctimonious wastes of space like her.  Uh, no bitch.  Furthermore, all her progressive policies would do is feed, clothe and shelter a feral underclass that will continue to commit crimes despite the fact that their every need is met.  The three biggest cities in this country (Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City) are good examples of this.

Did it ever occur to her, and many other liberals, that people in these rural cities see no need for fiber Internet?  In all likelihood, we’re talking about farmers and people with small businesses, people who have been doing business a certain way for years and so far it’s clearly working for them.  Of course, if people like her weren’t so bigoted, maybe these people could get jobs that paid enough to justify paying hundreds of dollars a month for high speed Internet.  This bitch thinks that high speed Internet will automatically result in “enlightened” progressives that like having gay orgies or something.  No, it won’t.  In fact, it might turn out to be your worst nightmare, because these incorrigible bigots you hate so much will be able to communicate with another and coordinate political action.  Four years of Trump might turn into eight, and possibly four to eight years of Pence too.  So yeah, if rural America wants the Internet, I’m all for it.

You’ve already clearly sacrificed tolerance.  You are completely and utterly unwilling to consider these people human beings, much less willing to work with them on anything.  Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.  You can still dislike something while tolerating it.

Oh, and notice how this rancid hag does not give any specifics with regards to the alleged bigotry and intolerance found in “rural” America.  And just exactly how are they intolerant and bigoted?  What specific examples of bigotry can you give, or are you just making all this shit up because you clearly won’t live to see the first female president’s inaguration?

Now we get to the part that pisses me off the most.  If you honestly think that these rural people are “voting against their best interests” then you don’t know anything about these people.  You clearly do not know what you’re talking about.

I’m not a rural person.  I’ve lived in rural areas and the subdivision I currently live in is kind of rural.  But I’m not a rural person.  From what I understand, rural people are independent.  For example, the house my parents currently live in runs on well water.  My parents also burn their own trash.  My grandfather takes his trash to the dump himself.

My now deceased step-grandfather came of age during the Great Depression.  He did pretty much everything himself.  He even made beds for us when my family moved to his town!  Rural folk do everything themselves, and they’re totally fine with it!  They don’t need some sanctimonius city bitch swooping in and telling them they have to let a bunch of illegal immigrants live in their neighborhood, or how much corn they can plant, or what kind of light bulbs they should use, etc.  All they want is to be left alone.

This statement of hers contradicts everything else she’s said.  If these people were as truly as bigoted and intolerant as she claims, voting Democrat would be against their self interests.  After all, the Democrats are the ones that want to flood our country with Mexico’s population.

Which brings me to her next point, that these rural people don’t want “brown” people to thrive.  Even if that were true, so?  And what is that even supposed to mean, anyway?  Once again, she gives no examples.  Just tosses that stupid talking point out there because it’ll piss people off.  These rural, independent folk have no respect for someone that leeches off of the government.  After all, they get by with far less than most welfare queens in Chicago or NYC do.  I can’t blame them for feeling that way.

And by her admission, big corporations refuse to build factories, etc in their cities because they can’t stand the bigotry.  Evidently, by her own admission politics has nothing to do with that.  Voting Democrat won’t magically convince these corporations to build anywhere but Mexico or China or whatever.  By her idiotic logic, “brown” people “thriving” would be against their best interests.

I’m sure you’ve heard about all the companies that want to build factories and stuff ever since Trump was elected.  It’s obvious that this hateful bitch is full of shit.  It’s also obvious that she does not know what she’s talking about.

I am half-black, half-Hispanic.  I am also a woman.  I have voted Republican my whole life.  Even though I have spent most of my life living on military bases, I have a lot of respect for rural folks.  I have respect for city folks too, by the way, and suburbanites.  All three have different qualities; all three bring something different to the table.  This woman knows absolutely nothing about my best interests, or anyone else’s interests.  I am sick and tired of leftists bringing this up.

These rural people want jobs.  These rural people are offended by the fact that criminals from Mexico get treated like royalty because they come from a poor country.  These rural people are offended by the fact that many people in this country are living off of the taxpayer’s dime while they struggle and work hard every damn day.

Shit, she has so much contempt for rural America, what would she think of the average third world country?  They don’t have Internet either.  Oh, but they’re brown skinned people, so they’re okay.  This woman thinks “brown” people are objectively better than rural people, which is absurd because nobody is perfect, not even these illegal immigrants she loves so much.  Take a good look at the crime statistics for Los Angeles.  Proof right there that these people are not perfect.

This crap pisses me off.  It really does, especially that “they’re voting against their best interests” bullshit.  I don’t need welfare.  I don’t need the government to run every aspect of my life.  Voting Democrat or for any progressive party will never be in my best interest because I care about FREEDOM more than anything else in the world.

Digital Libraries

pexels-photo-76942

If you’re lucky enough, your county’s library system might have a “digital library” or a website where you can check out eBooks (usually with DRM applied).  I have a library card from my previous residence (on the West Coast), and that county library uses Over Drive.  My local library has a digital library but they use something else (someone stole my local library card, amongst my other things, grrr).

So, since I no longer have my local library card, I’ve been poking around at the Over Drive site for my former county of residence, and I wanted to talk about something that’s been bothering me for a long time.  Almost all of the books, save for classics, have DRM.  Those limitations are very steep.  Only one person can check out a book at a time, never mind the fact that the average ePub or MOBI file is about 300 KB.  It wouldn’t be a huge bandwidth drain to let several patrons check out a book simultaneously.

The reason for this is copyright law.  The library has to purchase a license for a given title, and that license is only good for a certain number of checkouts.  Then they have to purchase it again.

I found an blog post called “Why borrowing an eBook from your library is so difficult” that explains the wretched situation:

Once you get past the technical hoops of connecting your library to your e-reader, you’ll figure out fast that publishers have decided to force libraries to treat e-books like paper books, so only one person can check them out at a time. The library can only check out as many copies of an e-book as they’ve purchased or licensed from publishers. Seems like an antiquated way of going about things, right? It gets worse.

Publishers also decided that since e-books don’t wear out the way paper books do, they need to put limits on how many times a title can be lent before the library has to buy a new copy. For some publishers, the e-book “wears out” after 26 uses. Other publishers put a time limit on it, allowing a library to loan an e-book for a year before having to renew what amounts to a license fee. The publishers that still allow libraries to buy an e-book and loan it out forever without restrictions often charge a very high price for each book.

Note:  the blog post is from 2013, but is still pretty relevant.  This, of course, is the publishers’ fault.  They’re greedy and they think this kind of crap will prevent piracy (hint:  it does not.  At all.  Trust me, I know).

What astonishes me is that there are some people (mostly on Mobileread) who actually defend this practice!  They’re all, “but, it’s a library.  It only makes sense.  I mean, more than one person cannot check out the same hardcover copy of a book!”

No, it’s not the same!  We’re talking about a small digital file that can be anywhere from 300 KB to 2 MB!  It doesn’t take a whole lot to host such files, and it doesn’t take a whole lot to allow people to download the files!  Even simultaneously!  The whole point of ePub and MOBI files (and PDFs, of which tend to be larger and are only really any good on a desktop PC or a ten inch tablet like an iPad) is that they are small and cheap to reproduce!  One hundred people could easily check out a copy of, I dunno, My Awesome Book by Jane Doe simply because the technology makes it possible to do so.  eBook libraries should be the future, and yet they are not because the publishing industry is completely greedy and unwilling to change.

So I’m looking at the library on Tuesday – New Release Tuesday – and I would have no chance of checking out a new release because some other patron has already checked it out, even though, technically, it can be done even with DRM restrictions on the file (of which can still limit the amount of time I can actually read the file, depending on my account settings).

A waiting list for a digital file that can easily be replicated is just absurd.  It’s antiquated and completely ridiculous.

Oh hell no!

 

nope grumpy cat

Oh no no no no no.  NO.  I read the following paragraph a few days ago and saw red:

That said, it does seem counterintuitive to advocate that there be less sex in YA and I worry that people will lump me in with the moralistic, puritanical voices of those who are likely to censor books containing sexual content due to their fear of sexuality. Of course I disagree with censorship and am all for sex positivity and the presence of sex and romance in YA novels – I just think that there’s room for multiplicity. That maybe, not every single narrative should contain sex and that maybe more YA characters should be able to get through a novel without having a single love interest or thinking that they’re freaks of nature for this reason.

This is from a blog post at BookRiot called “On Normalizing Teen Singlehood in YA” and as I said, it pissed me off.

First of all, the whole notion of “book banning” and the kind of censorship the idiot author is talking about is complete and utter bullshit.  Books are not being “banned” in the US.  Books that some people feel are inapprorpiate for children and teenagers are being “challenged” (complained about by parents and/or teachers, and in rare cases, students) and some are removed from the library shelves or school reading lists and curricula.

That does not mean the possession and consumption of said books are illegal.  NO.  That is not what’s happening. A book being pulled off of the shelf will not stop a given person from reading it.  This is hardly censorship.

A lot has been happening for me lately, and I added this to my Safari reading list with the intent of writing a post about how much it enraged me.  Then other stuff happened, and this post from Glenn Beck’s The Blaze caught my eye (and no, I do not like Glenn Beck anymore but I’ll link it anyway):  Pedophilia, Incest, and Graphic Sex: Excerpts from a Common Core Reading List Book for 11th-Graders That Will Make You Blush.

No, I did not blush.  I got angrier, and was reminded of that stupid post I read on BookRiot.  I just had to say something.  The book in question is The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison.  At first glance it seems like it would be an interesting novel, given that it’s about a black girl that basically wishes for blue eyes so she can be “pretty.”  Timely, too.  This book is recommended by the odious Common Core program.

Then you read the excerpts (I’m not putting that crap on my blog; that excerpt from the BookRiot post is enough garbage for one post) and you’re like, “naaaah, that’s quite alright.  Kids should at least read, I dunno, Mark Twain or something before reading this contemporary smutfest.”  There’s incest and pedophilia in that book, which might be a tad advanced for a bunch of high school juniors.

Now, if I ever finish my novel and publish it, you’ll probably think I’m a raging hypocrite.  My main character, Tara, is captured by the US government for the purposes of exploiting her psychic abilities and in the course of her captivity, is sexually abused.  She also has consensual sex with her boyfriend (but it’s not graphic or gross).  I don’t think that being “puritanical” and “moralistic” about sexuality or anything is a bad thing.  Quite the opposite. People like me are not “afraid” of sex.  I’m angry about how sex has been CHEAPENED by idiots like the BookRiot blogger.  Sex is more than just some need that has to be fulfilled.  It’s not like hunger or thirst.  It’s more than that.  It isn’t some random thing people do on a Friday night because they’re boring people with no other interests or hobbies.  It’s how the human race exists.  It’s the strengthening of the bond between a husband and a wife.  It’s the ultimate expression of love between two people (well, one of the ultimate expressions of love).  It is not a fucking political statement and it’s not, and should not, be a goddamn hobby.  Stamp collecting is a hobby.  Basket weaving is a hobby.  Sex is not, and should not be a hobby.

I read a lot of YA.  I don’t like the way sex is portrayed in very much of the genre.  The girl just can’t wait until she loses her virginity, and is magically a better person once she loses it, and becomes even better the more random partners she has.  There’s no word on the true purpose of sex – procreation – unless the author wants to promote contracpetion or abortion.

So we’ve got Common Core advocates pushing for kids to read stuff like The Bluest Eye and they wonder why people like me complain.  Nothing Toni Morrison could possibly be considered exemplary literature.  Nothing.  Kids should read the classics FIRST, because THESE are excellent examples of literature – they’re classics for a reason.  Many of today’s authors have basically taken the plots of those classics and have put their own spin on it.  To have a full appreication of writing and literature, you have to read and understand the greats first.

Oh, and another thing.  The difference between what I’ve written in my as-yet unpublished novel and The Bluest Eye is this:

The presence of the book on Common Core’s list, combined with Morrison’s descriptions of incest, rape, and pedophilia as “friendly,” “innocent,” and “tender” have sparked outrage in some communities.

I don’t glorify rape.  I don’t make it seem friendly or innocent or tender or any other wonderful adjective you could possibly throw at it.  Not just no, but HELL NO.  I show it for the horror it is.  Writing about these contentious subjects is a good thing, but one shouldn’t glorify or glamorize it.  I cannot believe someone like Toni Morrison can write shit like that and just go about her business like nothing’s wrong.

Mainstream literature – whether it be contemporary fiction, historical fiction, or YA should not glorify stuff like this.  This stuff is also too explicit for high schoolers.  If that makes me a preening, moralistic busybody then so be it.  I don’t care.

Unhappy Endings

I’m sure you’ve all heard of the Divergent saga.  You’ve probably heard of the films, but they were based on a trilogy by Veronica Roth.  The premise – teenage girl lives in heavily segregated post-apocalyptic Chicago, learns to fit in with another group while learning how to “fight” and falling in love with some guy – sounded like Lois Lowery’s The Giver and…well, probaby Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games trilogy but that book’s premise wasn’t entirely original (see Stephen King’s The Running Man and Battle Royale by Koushun Takami).

The first film adaptation did fairly well, but the other two films in the saga did not.  Now the final part of the film saga, Ascendant, is in limbo because the studio does not want to blow a lot of money on a movie that won’t do well (as of right now, it’s going to be a TV movie).  I thought this was interesting.  The last two films of the saga are based on one book, Allegiant, which is an annoying trend, and the ending of Allegiant may be one reason the film didn’t do so well, and might also be one reason for the studio’s hesitance in making a theater-quality film (as opposed to a made for TV movie).

Spoilers ahead….

Continue reading Unhappy Endings

On writing tough things

So I need to get back to writing.  I really do.  I did do some work on Nemesis yesterday, but then got sidetracked into doing a related side-project.  In Nemesis, the main character, Tara, is captured by the US government and is taken to an underground facility.  She has a number of amazing abilities, including the ability to communicate with others through her dreams (which, I realized some time ago, sounds an awful lot like astral projection).

Well, when she’s down there, she is experimented on and observed by scientists.  The side-project consists of the notes and observations written by the scientists.  The side-project is really fun because one of the scientists is a snobby European who is a lot of fun to write.

That scientist also happens to be a sex-addict and a rapist.  This is actually important to the story, I promise, but I don’t want to spoil it.  There are rape scenes, and all of them were pretty graphic, but I toned most of them down, except for the last one.  I felt, and feel so bad for writing them, but on the other hand, why sweep these issues under the rug?  I don’t want people to get off on these scenes…I just want people to see them for the horror they are, I guess.

I’m also scared to let my fellow conservatives read those scenes, if I ever get around to finishing it enough to send it out to beta readers.  And I am definitely kind of scared to let anyone in my family read them (they can’t wait to read the finished novel).  I don’t want to censor myself or chicken out either, though.

Even an Austrian can be completely ignorant

This is kind of late, but I just had to write some kind of response.  It’s been on my mind, off and on, ever since the election, basically.

I’m just going to leave off how I found this.  I just found it, and it bothered me.  Austrian actor and prime Eurosnob Christoph Waltz went on Austrian TV to lament the election of Donald Trump. It is entirely in German, and this blogger was kind enough to offer this translation:  “This piss-stupid insanity

Now note, this is all a translation.  I do not speak or read German, because I’m a hopelessly ignorant American.  I just wanted to respond to some of the comments he made.

G: You live in Los Angeles, which has been and continues to be Democrat, but it borders on Mexico, where Trump plans to build a wall. You live in Los Angeles. Do you personally experience this division in the city?

W: No. Fortunately not. But in California, support for Trump is more in the North-East. At the border to Mexico, it’s solidly Democrat. The wall for me … I don’t know, it remains to be seen. But I can only say that for me personally, the presence of the many Latinos in Los Angeles is fortunate, because they have a completely different way of life, and a much more direct relationship with life, and with humanity.

I have bolded the bit I found offensive.  Why the hell does he even remain in the US if he thinks Americans don’t have a direct relationship with life and humanity?  What is that supposed to even mean anyway?  What, do we use our iPhones too much?  This is typical Eurosnob speak.  Of course, those poor brown non-Americans are so much better than those fat, disgusting pig Yankees who spend too much money and eat too much food.

I am actually Latino, and I guess I should be flattered by this, but I am not.  Instead, I am pissed off.  And another thing – I highly doubt this two-time Oscar winner even has many “Latino” friends and the only “Latinos” he meets are the ones that come around to fix his plumbing or mow his lawn.

Americans want the wall because there are too many Mexicans (and other non-Americans) in this country.  They aren’t just “taking our jobs” – they’re costing the taxpayers billions of dollars every year.  We have to feed them, clothe them, shelter them and educate their children – in their native language no less.  The United States is already in deep financial shit as it is, and these people, who have absolutely nothing but contempt for American laws and cultrue, are not helping.

A great deal of these illegals are also pretty violent, but I’ll get to that later.  Did Kate Steinle’s killer have a more direct relationship with life and humanity, Mr. Waltz?  I’d pay good money to have him answer that one.

G: Much has been said about social networks and the media in the US. There was massive campaigning there, and every one of Trump’s utterances was re-hashed. What is the significance of this? As an actor, you know how important PR is. Did social networks, the media, make Trump even bigger than he already was?

W: Absolutely. Absolutely, because the so-called social networks have, there are now a number of studies about this, they also have a high anti-democratic and undemocratic energy. And I doubt that this piss-stupid insanity would have been able to spread that quickly without the so-called social networks. Because it would always have gone through a bit of a critical filter. As much as one can deplore the degeneration of journalism in the digital age. If there is a critical mind in the background that does not even edit, but just filters, it already looks different. If it needs to be printed or finished for television. On the internet, everyone can spread everything immediately, no matter what it’s based on. And obviously, that makes it much easier to spread negative content, because it’s always like that.

I just chuckle at this one.  He’s an old man who is terrified of social media – after all, he stated that Facebook is a step towads fascism.  Sigh, yet another person who misuses the word “fascism.”  Look, I’m not that enthusiastic about social media either, but I’m not stupid.  If I read something, I verify it.  Instead of blaming “fake news” sites, he blames it on social media spreading all this “piss-stupid insanity.”  God, he lives in quite the bubble.  Christoph Waltz is a true SJW.  Instead of questioning what he’s read about the election so far, he doubles down.  It’s obviously someone else’s fault.  He, and all the other “moderate” liberals (in another interview, he actually called himself a moderate liberal, which is a laugh, considering how he enthusiastically defended Roman Polanski, of all people) still believe they’re right.

Anti-democratic?  Undemocratic?  Does he not realize that first of all, the United States government is not a democracy?  We are a republic, with democratic elements.  Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.  Note how he does not elaborate on the nature of this anti-democratic nature.  Or what this “piss-stupid” insanity is.  Just that someone on this earth does not think like him, so therefore they must be insane, stupid and anti-democratic.

And he goes to defend the traditional media, because they can shape the message before it goes to print, and that somehow makes it better.  The guy is either deluded or clueless.

G: Does this result in a responsibility for the culture industry or for stars who have hundreds of thousands or even more than a million followers? To call for moderation in social networks and prevent further division?

W: Of course I see a responsibility. But I always see a responsibility. I don’t see more of a responsibility than usual, just because of Trump. I argue that if we had been conscious of this responsibility earlier, then maybe we could have … maybe not changed anything, but maybe at least raise awareness. Because honestly, I see it as a deficit in awareness to fall for this kind of demagoguery.

Here’s where it gets a little scary.  He does not like social media at all, and has absolutely no social media accounts.  That might possibly be due to the fact that he’s no good with computers anyway.

I bolded the part that really concerns me.  And what would that awareness be?  Supporting Hillary?  Once again, he does not elaborate, and the interviewer just lets it go, without pressing him to defend his crazy opinions.

The scary part is that he, like every other liberal Hollywood asshat, feels he has the responsibility to “raise awareness” – also known as “promoting propaganda.”  So he’s apparently totally okay with being a propagandist.  God forbid any American expect our government to enforce its immigration laws.

Oh, but he must be butthurt about all the mean things Trump said.

G: In his first speech, Trump has appeared conciliatory. It was a bit of a change that he went through there on stage. Do we not have to presume his innocence, give him a bit of time and say we have to wait and see, and we judge him by what he actually does?

W: You mean we declare everything he has said so far as unsaid and say forget it, it does not matter? He did not call for torture, he did not say that if one has atomic weapons, one might as well use them, he did not say Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers? I mean, the list goes on forever. We just pretend this has never been mentioned and say maybe he’s actually a fun guy? Why? What has been said cannot be unsaid. And Obama himself said in his meeting with Trump that we have to work on making Trump feel welcome and that if he succeeds, the country succeeds. Really? If Trump succeeds with what he announced during his campaign, then we have reached the end.

Liberals are completely incapable of avoiding hypocrisy.  They are unable to be anything but hypocrites.  He is very much the kind of “subjective morals” kind of guy, especially given that ever since his Oscar-winning turn in Inglorious Basterds, he’s been typecast as a villain.

First of all, no, Trump did not call for torture, did not say that if one has atomic weapons that one should just use them, and he did not say that all Mexicans were rapists and drug dealers.

Question.  Why is it okay for you to automatically write off Donald Trump (and Dick Cheney, who he believes is an “evil” Vice President) as a complex human being, but we’re not supposed to care that Roman Polanski has evaded justice for over thirty fucking years after drugging and anally raping a teenage girl?  Why must I pretend that Polanski has never raped a teenage girl and that he’s a really fun guy?  What Polanski has done cannot be undone.  Why should any of us ignore it?  Because you worked with him?  Excuse me, but no.  Not just no, but fuck no.

Yes, if Trump does succeed, the country will be better off.  Hell, Trump’s not even in office and he’s saved 1,000 jobs.  He’s getting shit done.  Maybe it’s the end for your brand of libertine globalism, but it isn’t the end for America.

G: The first people to congratulate Trump were right-wing populists and despots. They were jubilant and they now expect a boost from Trump’s victory in America. You are what one could call a wanderer between cultures: you live in America, but you also live in London and in Berlin. You know Brexit, you know both those systems. As someone who really knows both sides well, do you think there is going to be this boost for right-wing populists in Europe?

W: Yes, those right-wing populists are sure to try and benefit from this media hype. That pathetic Brexit person Farage has already presented himself here and has tried to somehow heat up opinions by saying it would be a “Brexit plus plus”. Unfortunately, he was effectively right, there is no arguing with that. But the political systems are so different that it’s impossible to compare one and the other. And Mr Farage would have to explain to me again what organisation it is that the USA want to leave for their own benefit. I know that Trump has announced he would cancel or even just ignore trade agreements, to destabilise NATO if the partners don’t pay – which effectively means that he wants to turn the United States Army into an army of mercenaries. All those things … It is only tempting to make a comparison if one is after a headline.

I suppose that “despot” would happen to be Vladimir Putin.  Fair enough.  But it’s not like Kim Jong-Un is calling Trump and offering his congratulations.  I’ll get to the bolded bit in a minute.  That one also pissed me off real good.

Okay, this bit makes it painfully obvious that he just does not know what he’s talking about.  Waltz does not think that Brexit has anything to do with Trump’s victory.  Uh, yes it does.  The two events have one important thing in common:  the people’s rejection of globalism.  DUH.  How could you not know that?  I’m not saying you have to agree with it or approve of either Trump’s victory or Brexit, but how can you not know what drove these events in the first place?

And he has some bizarre, personal vendetta against Nigel Farage.  He needs to get over it.  Jesus.

So, on to the bolded bit.  Waltz clearly has no respect for the US armed forces.  He is already on record stating that, as far as he’s concerned, the US Marine uniform has the same significance to him as the Nazi uniform.  My advice to you, Mr. Waltz, if you figured out how to turn on your computer and navigate to my humble little blog:  don’t say that shit to any American.  You never know if the person you’re talking to is a veteran, and if they are, and you say that in their presence, they’ll kick your scrawny ass back to Vienna.

But NO, that’s not what Trump meant.  At all.  Trump expects the NATO nations that aren’t actually paying the money they agreed to pay when they joined the pact in the first place to, oh, I dunno, PAY UP.  Are you at all aware of his actual postion on the matter?  The United States is BROKE.  I don’t know how many times I have to say it.  We can’t afford this shit anymore.  We certainly can’t afford the archaic and obsolete NATO anyway, and no, we shouldn’t have to send our troops to go bail out some European country when they aren’t even paying their fair share.  Trump said that until these countries start paying what they promised to pay, we might not bother anymore.  They’ll have to defend themselves.  That hardly makes the US armed forces a fucking mercenary force, you asshole.

And the very last bit – get scared, y’all.

G: One more question to Hollywood: Hollywood is an opinion maker. Does the film industry need to have a stronger and more courageous way of dealing with the topic of right-wing populism?

W: Yes. Absolutely. We all need a stronger and more sensible approach to this topic. We all need to start to carefully think about how we want to shape our community and what we can bring to the table. Hollywood is an opinion maker, but Hollywood is also a multi-billion-dollar business. Hollywood has not been led by responsible opinion makers and critical thinkers for a long time. Instead, it is led by multinational corporations whose accountants and business managers dictate more or less where it’s heading. Now, that sounds worse than it is … Or maybe it is worse than it sounds, I don’t know. In any case, a lot will happen within the so-called independent scene in reaction to this.

Vox Day was RIGHT!!!  SJWs, after they lie, they double down!  They always fucking double down!  This is WHY Trump won!  Or at least one of the many reasons he won!  Nobody but snotty liberals on either coast is interested in Hollywood as an opinion maker.  Of course, opinion making is code for propagandizing.

Okay okay, so in another interview, he complained about people complaining about how the public expects historical films and films based on true stories to be accurate.  He said this mostly during the promotion of the film Big Eyes.  No, Walter Keane did not speak with a nasal Austrian accent, and yet the director, Tim Burton, felt that expecting Waltz to actually speak like an American when playing an American was unnecessary.  Waltz also felt that it was unnecessary to acknowledge that yes, Walter Keane actually did some of his own artwork.

So when he performs in films like Django Unchained and Big Eyes, he’s not making historical documentaries or biographies.  Nah, accuracy be damned, and yet, he now expects film studios to continue to promote the inaccurate garbage they’ve been promoting for decades because there are still people in the US capable of thinking for themselves regardless of what Hollywood has to say about anything.

So,  less comic-book blockbusters and more stupid propaganda like Selma and Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave and Obvious Child and The Butler (especially this one, as the titular character didn’t actually hate the Reagans at all) and all those dreary anti-war films of the Bush era.  There’s loads of films I could list, but you get the point.  There’s so many it’s hard to keep track of them all, and before you freak out about Selma, my grandfather is black and grew up in the segregated South, and even he said that that movie was a load of crap.

He believes that independent films will continue to push the decidedly false liberal narrative and hopefully save the day, or some such nonsense.

One of the absolute worst aspects of American society is how much power Hollywood has, and how overwhelmingly leftist our public education is (from kindergarten all the way through graduate school).  That shit got Obama elected.  That shit also got Trump elected in a way because people are sick of it.

Hollywood was firmly in the tank for Hillary.  They worked so hard to get her elected – for decades now, almost every single female president character was inspired by her.  A great deal of positive political female characters were inspired by her.  Hillary got celebrity endorsements left and right.  Dozens of newspapes across the nation endorsed her.  Hell, fashion magazines like Vogue endorsed her!

And yet it amounted to absolutely nothing.  She lost in an electoral landslide.  You must be a special kind of stupid to think that doubling-down is going to improve your situation.  Spoiler alert:  it won’t.

These people won’t stop.  They won’t rest.  They’ll continue putting out this stupid toxic crap and they’ll attack us and call us bigots who don’t have a direct relationship with life and humanity.  They’ll never learn.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  That’s what Ida B. Wells said.  She’s so right.  This isn’t over, and we’ve got to keep fighting.