Category Archives: Entertainment

Hiroshima Revisited: Memorializing the Horrors of War with 10 Must-See War Films, by John W. Whitehead

Needless to say, none of the movies listed are pro-war. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

“The horror… the horror…”—Apocalypse Now (1979)

Nearly 73 years ago, the United States unleashed atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 individuals, many of whom were civilians.

Fast forward to the present day, and the U.S. military under President Trump’s leadership is dropping a bomb every 12 minutes.

This follows on the heels of President Obama, the antiwar candidate and Nobel Peace Prize winner who waged war longer than any American president and whose targeted-drone killings continued to feed the war machine and resulted in at least 1.3 million lives lost to the U.S.-led war on terror.

America has long had a penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When you add in our military efforts in Syria and Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $5.6 trillion.

Even with America’s military might spread thin, the war drums continue to sound as the Pentagon polices the rest of the world with more than 1.3 million U.S. troops being stationed at roughly 1000 military bases in over 150 countries.

To this end, Americans are fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.

Nowhere is this double-edged irony more apparent than during military holidays, when we get treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military.

Yet war is a grisly business, a horror of epic proportions. In terms of human carnage alone, war’s devastation is staggering. For example, it is estimated that approximately 231 million people died worldwide during the wars of the 20th century. This figure does not take into account the walking wounded—both physically and psychologically—who “survive” war.

War drives the American police state.

The military-industrial complex is the world’s largest employer.

to continue reading: Hiroshima Revisited: Memorializing the Horrors of War with 10 Must-See War Films 

Is the End of Facebook Nigh? by Tom Luongo

If Facebook contacts are a big part of your life, condolences are in order. Are people figuring out that social media is not particularly social, especially compared to what used to be called socializing pre-social media? From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:

Last fall I warned you Facebook has a fundamental problem.

More and more people were realizing it and it would have an effect on the company’s business going forward.

Here’s the jist of it:

…the biggest problem with Facebook is it’s all fake intimacy; a pale simulacra of real life interactions with people you are supposed to care about.

But, I don’t care about 99% of the people I went to high school with.  I went to college 1100 miles from those people and barely looked back.  The people I truly value from that part of my life mostly feel about Facebook the way I do.

That’s what makes them people I value.

They value the value of their closely-held opinions and don’t dilute it by publicly sharing their banality.  They realize that being friends is more than dropping political stink bombs in someone’s digital living room and saying, “I dare you to not breathe.”

So, here you are on a platform that is supposed to be all about you and the last thing anyone really wants to be on Facebook is … themselves.

In the November 2017 issue of the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter I led off that issue with this criticism of Facebook as a reason the company would soon hit the proverbial customer wall:

Facebook was built on the false premise that we want to be in contact with all of the people we ever met ALL THE TIME.  But no, we really don’t.  We all, as T.S. Eliot put it, “prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet.”

We are all different people depending on our venue.  Public social networks force us to adopt one persona or face the wrath of the self-righteous.

A billion plus people who are all wrong on the internet.  In real time.  Lovely!

Social media is taxing.  It’s fundamentally poor quality social interaction.  It’s either endless moral preening and virtue signaling or a time-wasting diversion.

That’s not to say I don’t love a good cat video, because I do.

To continue reading: Is the End of Facebook Nigh?

Who Stole Our Culture? by William S. Lind

Everything you ever wanted to know about cultural Marxism. From William S. Lind at lewrockwell.com:

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like it’s a foreign country? Did it just “happen”?

It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”

Early Marxist theory

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

To continue reading: Who Stole Our Culture?

Netflix lost $17.8 million for each of its 112 Emmy nominations, by Simon Black

Two companies that lose tons of money but nevertheless have sky-high stock markets—Netflix and Tesla—will one day be seen as symbols of our insane age and insane finances. From Simon Black at sovereignman.com:

It was only a few day ago that Netflix was riding high.

The streaming company had been nominated for a whopping 112 Emmy awards, more than any other network.

And they’d further managed to unseat HBO’s 17-year reign as the undisputed king of Emmy nominations.

That’s all fine and good. Netflix certainly has some great shows.

Did you know? You can receive all our actionable articles straight to your email inbox… Click here to signup for our Notes from the Field newsletter.

But reality started to set in yesterday afternoon when the company reported its quarterly financial results… and the numbers were definitely two thumbs down.

For some painfully idiotic reason, analysts seem to judge Netflix by a single benchmark: the number of subscribers.

If subscriber growth is strong, Netflix stock soars.

I say this is ‘painfully idiotic’ because Netflix loses money year after year. The more subscribers they bring in, the more money they lose.

At the end of 2015, for example, Netflix had 75 million subscribers. But its Free Cash Flow was NEGATIVE $920 million.

The following year, Netflix had grown its subscriber base to 93 million. Yet its Free Cash Flow had sunk even further to negative $1.65 billion.

By the end of 2017, Netflix subscribers totaled 117 million. But the company burned through $2.02 billion.

So when you do the math, you see that each Emmy nomination this year cost Netflix $17.8 million.

That’s a lot worst than last year, when Netflix’s 92 nominations at the 2017 awards cost them $16.0 million.

Clearly the more ‘successful’ Netflix becomes, whether in the quality of its content, or in attracting subscribers, the more money they lose.

Yet the stock surges ever higher. It’s truly bizarre.

Well, it all came crashing down yesterday when Netflix announced growth figures that no longer defied gravity.

Total subscribers came in at below the level that analysts had forecast… and the selling began almost immediately.

To continue reading: Netflix lost $17.8 million for each of its 112 Emmy nominations

It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics, by John W. Whitehead

Americans have become so use to “reality” shows and “reality” politics that they no longer recognize real reality. From John W. Whitehead at rutherford.org:

Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours…. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”— Professor Neil Postman

Americans have a voracious appetite for TV entertainment, and the Trump reality show—guest starring outraged Democrats, power-hungry Republicans, and a hodgepodge of other special interest groups with dubious motives—feeds that appetite for titillating, soap opera drama.

After all, who needs the insults, narcissism and power plays that are hallmarks of reality shows when you can have all that and more delivered up by the likes of Donald Trump and his cohorts?

Trump is inclined to denounce any news agencies and reports that paint him in a less than favorable light as “fake news,” which leaves only the Fox News channel to carry the president’s torch for media integrity.

Yet as John Lennon reminds us, “nothing is real,” especially not in the world of politics.

In other words, it’s all fake, i.e. manufactured, i.e. manipulated to distort reality.

Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

Likewise, “The Trump Show” keeps the citizenry distracted, diverted and divided.

This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.

As long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.

The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold.

Reality and fiction merge as everything around us becomes entertainment fodder.

To continue reading: It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics

Netflixonomics: Cash-Burning Machine Blows Billions On Content In ‘Winner-Takes-Most’ Race, by Tyler Durden

Like Tesla, the more “successful” Netflix is the deeper the financial hole it digs itself. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

When Netflix published its third-quarter earnings last October, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer forecasted it would spend roughly $7 billion to $8 billion on original content in 2018.

The Economist, quoting a recent Goldman Sachs equity assessment, states that Netflix could spend $12 billion to $13 billion on original content, which is more than any studio or television network spends on films or shows that are not sports related.

According to the IndieWire, Netflix will roll out 82 feature films within the year, including Noah Baumbach’s “The Meyerowitz Stories” follow-up starring Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver, and the Sandra Bullock thriller “Bird Box,” while Warner Bros. and Disney will respectively release 23 and ten films to cinemas.

The company is even producing or procuring more than 700 new or exclusively licensed television shows, including 100 scripted dramas and comedies, dozens of documentaries and children’s shows, stand-up comedy specials and unscripted reality and talk shows.

Moreover, its ambitions of global domination are now being realized, as current productions are underway in 21 countries, including Brazil, Germany, India, and South Korea.

In the first quarter of this year, Netflix had 125 million subscribers worldwide, 57 million of them in America. In 2016, the company’s global membership grew 48 percent; last year’s gain was 42 percent. With an average subscription of $10 a month, those customers represent some $14 billion in annual revenue which the company recycles the money back into programming, marketing, and technology—along with billions it must borrow to keep the scheme going.

Goldman analysts believe Netflix could spend an annual $22.5 billion on content by 2022. That would be collectively more than all entertainment spending by all U.S. networks and cable companies.

“We believe the growing content offering and expanding distribution ecosystem will continue to drive subscriber growth above consensus expectations. Based on the pace of both, we’re raising our revenue estimates and price target,” Goldman Sachs analyst Heath Terry wrote in a note to clients Wednesday.

“We believe Netflix’s ability to spend significantly more on customer acquisition while still producing ~4pps of operating margin expansion for the full year, on our estimates, will allow the company to drive additional subscriber growth, particularly in markets where the company’s brand presence isn’t as strong as it is in the U.S.,” he said.

The market values Netflix at $176 billion (as of July 06), which is more than CBS, Comcast, Disney, Twenty-First Century Fox, and Viacom. The Economist notes that some equity analysts recognize the high market capitalization as ridiculous because the company lacks profit, coupled with an enormous $8.5 billion debt load and limited media track record.

To continue reading: Netflixonomics: Cash-Burning Machine Blows Billions On Content In ‘Winner-Takes-Most’ Race

Review: The Incredibles 2, by Steve Sailer

SLL loved both The Incredibles 1 and 2. From Steve Sailer at takimag.com:

What proportion of the top creative artists in Hollywood, the heavyweight auteurs, are men of the right?

This old question has come up again with the box office triumph of the anti-egalitarian Brad Bird’s The Incredibles 2 and the comments about Donald Trump by David Lynch, director of Twin Peaks and Eraserhead.

Lynch’s work isn’t to everyone’s taste, but obviously he’s an American original who makes movies and television shows that nobody else could (or perhaps would). If you are as admired as David Lynch (his Mulholland Drive came in No. 1 in a recent poll of critics as the best film of the 21st century, although that could be an artifact of the survey methodology), you can, hopefully, continue to have a career after saying to The Guardian:

“[Trump] could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history because he has disrupted the thing so much. No one is able to counter this guy in an intelligent way.” While Trump may not be doing a good job himself, Lynch thinks, he is opening up a space where other outsiders might. “Our so-called leaders can’t take the country forward, can’t get anything done. Like children, they are. Trump has shown all this.”

Trump joked:

“There’s David Lynch. Enjoy it because his career in Hollywood is officially over.”

The square-jawed Lynch, who identifies himself on Twitter as “Filmmaker. Born Missoula, MT. Eagle Scout,” has many obsessions, but few that overlap with those of the social justice jihadis. Fortunately for Lynch, much of the press can’t imagine that his assessment of Trump could be anything other than some complex aesthetic put-on. They assume: By definition, unique artists such as Lynch must agree with everybody you know.

To continue reading: Review: The Incredibles 2

US Liberals Are Clinically Insane and Care Nothing for the American People, by Robert Bridge

It’s impossible to take these people seriously. From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:

US Liberals Are Clinically Insane and Care Nothing for the American People
Even before Donald Trump won the White House, there were strong indications that something was not quite right with the Liberal mindset. Today, all doubt on the matter has been cleared away.

The mass hysteria that swept across Liberal America, like one giant tear tsunami, following Hillary Clinton’s ‘surprise’ loss in the 2016 presidential election has reached a new level of madness and can now be described as a deep-seated psychosis.

There are some understandable reasons for the Left’s collective mental breakdown. Briefly, ‘Russiagate’ is disintegrating into a burlesque theater of the absurd, while Trump – from jump-starting the Heartland’s industrial sector, to making peace with a nuclear-armed dictator, to ‘winning’ the World Cup – is on a serious roll. If the momentum continues, it may give the Republicans a crucial victory in November congressional midterms. The Democrats, acutely aware as to what is at stake yet unable to stop Trump, are showing a side of their character that can be best described as treacherous. And in order to see the symptoms of a disintegrating Democratic Party one only need look at the US entertainment industry.

For example, actor Robert DeNiro, one of the most outspoken Hollywood critics of Trump, forced his captive audience at the recent Tony Awards to sit through an invective against the US leader, which started with the juvenile comment, “F*ck Trump!” Just in case his audience – which may have included some minors, not to mention Republicans – did not hear him the first time, DeNiro repeated it. The pathetic outburst, which was certainly not the first time a fading Hollywood star has used the pulpit at an awards ceremony to make a weak political impression, won DeNiro a cheap standing ovation.

Back in January 2017, before Trump was even moved into Pennsylvania Avenue, actress Meryl Streep pulled a similar stunt, lecturing the president on the diverse composition of US society in general and Hollywood in particular: “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners and if we kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts,” Streep said, a comment that reinforces the idea that actors should just stick to their scripts instead of venturing into the minefield of politics.

To continue reading: US Liberals Are Clinically Insane and Care Nothing for the American People

The ‘fake news’ story is fake news, by Philip Weiss

There has always been fake news. What’s new is the number of information via the internet,  which can enable people to cut threw the bogus. From Philip Weiss at mondoweiss.net:

Almost every day on public radio or public television, I hear reports about how fake news is undermining our democracy. These high-minded reporters and anchors seem truly to believe that a feverish menace is overwhelming the minds of once-sensible people.

This story is itself fake news for several obvious reasons. We’ve never had more good information than we have now; people are as well-informed as they want to be. There will always be outlets purveying lies; that is the nature of communication. And the insistence on the “fake news” issue is an effort to assign Trump’s victory not to those who brought it to us (the electorate, and the incompetence of the Clinton campaign) but on some nefarious agents.

The fact that we have more and better information today than ever almost goes without saying. When I started in the news business more than 40 years ago, few reporters carried tape recorders, largely because they worked for a guild and were never subject to correction. Today there are countless outlets, thanks to the internet, and important events are almost always recorded. The amount of data we have on public figures is vast compared to even ten years ago.

We can all argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing; but we are today awash in information. That information is more reliable than it has ever been before. My own work on Palestine and the Israel lobby has shown me that global consumers can get more accurate information about that conflict than they’ve ever had. Yes, as we assert here all the time, the mainstream US media is in the tank for Israel; but it’s not as if better information is not available at your fingertips, much of it from Europe and Palestine, often citizen video.

To continue reading: The ‘fake news’ story is fake news

Natalie Portman Boycotts Israeli Prize; Right Wing Goes Ballistic, by Reese Erlich

Jewish actress Natalie Portman refused an award because she felt to accept it would be an implicit endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahu, who gave a speech at the award ceremony. Even this level of dissent is too much for some Israeli partisans. From Reese Erlich at antiwar.com:

Actress Natalie Portman, a strong supporter of Israel, has come under vicious attack for criticizing that country’s leadership. She now joins the club of scholars, journalists, and political leaders who are vilified by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or his right-wing cohorts.

Portman was born in Jerusalem, and although her family left Israel when she was only three, she became fluent in Hebrew. She is a dual citizen of Israel and the United States.

While studying at Harvard, she became a research assistant for right-wing Zionist Alan Dershowitz. She directed and starred in a feature film presenting the Jewish side of the 1948 war that established the Israeli state.

So Portman is an unlikely candidate for vilification by conservative Jews. Here’s what happened.

Last November officials of the Genesis award, often referred to as Israel’s Nobel, announced that Portman had won this year’s prize. The award is partially funded by the prime minister’s office. In response Portman said, “I am proud of my Israeli roots and Jewish heritage. They are crucial parts of who I am.”

Then in late April she refused to attend the Genesis award ceremony in Jerusalem. In an Instagram post, Portman wrote, “I chose not to attend because I did not want to appear as endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu is a ultra right-winger who has ended all peace talks with Palestinians, overseen vicious attacks on Palestinians in Gaza, threatened war against Iran, and is facing numerous corruption investigations.

Portman’s boycott of the ceremony caught a lot of people off guard. “She was a strong supporter of Israel,” Rebecca Vilcomerson told me. “Her action really came as a surprise.” Vilcomerson is executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, a progressive organization with 15,000 dues paying members and 250,000 supporters. Vilcomerson applauded Portman’s principled stand.

The Jewish right wing, however, immediately began hyperventilating. Oren Hazan, a member of parliament from Netanyahu’s Likud Party, advocated stripping Portman of her Israeli citizenship. Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said her refusal to accept the award “has elements of anti-Semitism.” (He did not explain how Natalie Portman, a proud Jew, could be anti-Semitic.)

To continue reading: Natalie Portman Boycotts Israeli Prize; Right Wing Goes Ballistic