"He's Made Enough Fun" - I'm Told That I Couldn't Possibly Have Understood Carl Reiner You Know Who Said It

This is why he was Carl Reiner and no one else is. 

LG: What would the 2,000-Year-Old Man have to say now?

CR: We say it. He says it. We look at all the idiots in Congress. They can’t get things done. And the Republicans are just dumber than ever. Or they’re not dumb, they’re smart for themselves.They’re rich people who want to get richer. That’s the thing that drives me absolutely crazy. The rich people think they need more money. They don’t.They won’t pay their proper share. There’s no arguing that. But that doesn’t even come up because they won’t discuss it. It’s maddening. The rich people are getting richer and richer. They don’t do anything with it and they keep saying if you tax this money, they’ll destroy jobs.They never made jobs; they kept their money. It’s just terrible.

LG: How does the 2,000-Year-Old Man make that funny?

RC: He doesn’t. The 2,000-Year-Old Man is on vacation. He’s made enough fun.

Simps combines a very, very low form of an already low-grade pop-historical knowledge of the Nazis and the Shoah with his fully typical and entirely parochial bigotry to bear on questions of why the Nazis murdered almost certainly more than six-million Jews for being Jews.  I have come to believe the "six million" figure is too low as well as others often repeated.  

The Nazis didn't think the Jews were not "white" that wasn't how they classified people on a Darwinian scale of fitness.  They certainly didn't classify the Slavic people who they fully intended to exterminate - except for a fixed number to be kept as slaves - as "non-white" they classified them as "non-Aryan."  That was the criterion they used to draw up their list of people to be murdered from the face of the Earth, a scale of fitness which Stupy's cartoon heroic, imaginary Darwin fully believed in, himself, if in a decidedly English instead of German flavor of that poison.  He fully endorsed the first German exposition of that in Darwinian terms by the proto-Nazi Ernst Haeckel in his The History of Creation.  He had a different list of who was to go from the ones the Nazis wrote up but he had one. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time, had they prevailed, they would have been constantly looking for new lists of people to murder.  Certainly in Europe where the obviously white population would have been killed for not being linked to "Aryans".   I suspect the Celts would have been one such group in later murders,  Darwin would have certainly included the Irish in such a list of the biologically degraded, though, oddly, he didn't include the Celts in Scotland.  Britain had already proved they were more than ready to kill off millions in Ireland before Hitler was born. 

I've dealt with this exhaustively in posts Simels has combed to look for stuff he can make hay with, though he's clearly learned nothing from it.  I would guess he's never looked up the voluminous documentation I provided, with links and long passages of quotes.  The non-Jewish list of those to be exterminated - Hitler explicitly told the German officers who invaded Poland to murder every Pole, men, women and child - don't matter to him.  Neither does a more complex history told in German and biological terms, not in terms of American pop-historical ones.  But if you want to understand why the Nazis did what they did, that's what you've got to deal with, them and the science that was informing them. 

I Will Revise: Florence Foster Jenkins Is The Patron Saint Of Simp's Kind Of Bullshit Garage Band Delusion

If any of Duncan Black's Eschatots are reading this I hope they remember this the next time Stupy is bragging about how well his digitally enhanced, vanity-recorded garage band tapes are doing on the bullshit popularity listings on the obscure websites that narrow-cast them to an audience who aren't listening as they play online.  

Weinstock's recollection of Madame Jenkins's visits to the Melotone studio made their way into the liner notes of the long-playing compilation on 33 rpm released swiftly after Florence's death.  "Rehearsals, the niceties of volume and pitch, considerations of acoustics - all were thrust aside by her with ease and authority.  The technicians never ceased to be amazed by her capacity for circumventing the numerous problems and difficulties peculiar to recording.  She simply sang; the disc was recorded."  She also told a story which illustrated the artiste's unshakable self-belief.  It featured cameos for two of the great sopranos from the olden age of opera - Frieda Hempel, the diva of Leipzig who was a favorite of the Kaiser, and Luisa Tetrazzini, the Florentine prima donna renowned as 'the queen of staccato'.  Lady Florence reported to the studio that, at a recent soiree of one of her friends, all of them music lovers, [they] listened attentively to recordings of the Magic Flute aria by Tetrazzini, Hempel and the redoubtable Jenkins.  Unanimity of opinion, Mme Jenkins informed us with modest hesitancy, was that the latter recording was without a doubt the most outstanding of the three.'

[Her accompanist, Cosmo] McMoon told a similar story of Florence putting records on the Victrola when she hosted in the Seymour Hotel. Her guests were asked to compare her with the great coloratura soprano Amelita Galli-Curci who was a hugely popular recording artist.  "She would put on The Bell Song" by herself and Galli-Curci, and then she would hand little ballots out and you were supposed to vote which one was the best.  Of course they all voted for her, and one woman once voted for Galli-Curci so Madame said, "How could you mistake that?  My tones are so much fuller than that!"  So she really didn't hear the atrocious pitches in these things.  She used to sit delightedly and listen for hours to her recordings."

Florence Foster Jenkins 
by Nicholas Martin and Jasper Rees  

I can well imagine one of her parties being a bit more entertaining than a few hours at Eschaton, with a lot less vanity being displayed at La Jenkins' Salon.   I doubt she ever asked people to buy stuff at Amazon for her. 

Cineaste Simp

Simps, soi disant cineaste  once tried to make me feel inferior because I said I'd never seen a Gwyneth Paltrow movie and I had no idea of what she looked like, who she was other than that she is a Hollywood commercial sex freak who sells scented candles she says smells like her vagina.   

You might be surprised that I didn't feel inferior, especially to anyone who had seen one of her movies or thought they could possibly be important.  He was. 

Some Bull Shit Psychologist Estimated The IQ Of A Mechanical Alarm Clock as about 5. I Don't Think He Ranked TV-Retarded Geezers

The TV-retarded idiot of Queens must have had a stroke. 

He is claiming that I am  "now claiming that time zones don't matter because objectively it's the same time in China as it is in his hick neighborhood in New England at any given moment. 

He continues: I am not making this up.

Okay, actually I am making it up, but it's no stupider than his ACTUAL claim that the borough of Queens is not an actual place because it's in New York City and thus doesn't exist independently.

He is too TV addled to understand the simpler parts of jr. high set theory, the kind of stuff that even the stupid kids in a class will get because it is, as we say, self evident.  I don't think I ever had anyone as stupid as Simps in one of my classes in grade school.  I don't think even the less intelligent classes had anyone that stupid, by choice or biological accident.   And one of them was Mark H, the kind of asshole boy who spends his day making up dirty lyrics for sit-com intros and the such.   He came to no good, ended up swindling his mother who died in destitution because of him. 

I don't think it matters what time zone Simps is in, his coo-coo clock isn't right even once a day.   I'd say something about UTC but I know he'll look here to see if I've given him the attention he craves.  I wish BG would put a mirror in front of him so he could spend his time talking to his favorite person instead of looking at the screen. 

but when I shall have to — the American democracy will have disappeared

I am not surprised that the tireless meter maid of my writing would hold the fictitious Joads of The Grapes of Wrath, a destitute rural, farm family to blame for the urban terrorism that happened in the city of Tulsa for real, overlooking several facts, among them that if white, rural Oklahomans were to be held culpable for what those in Tulsa did to the Black residents, why stop at the Oklahoma border?  Why not every white person in the United States?  I mean the real ones, not the fictitious ones.  

In order to imagine the Joads of having some guilt in that you would have no recourse but to believe that their creator,  John Steinbeck, would have imagined them to have participated in or supported the white-establishment terror and murder attack on an urban Black population for real. Not all white residents of Tulsa did, some were attacked for sheltering Black servants who lived with them.  

It's a long, long time since I read The Grapes of Wrath, but I don't recall that content in the book nor, indeed, can I imagine John Steinbeck making such people the heroes of one of his books.   It is ironic that Steinbeck, one of the more unusually acute critics of negative stereotypes of Black People, especially in relation to that fountain of negative racial stereotype, Hollywood, would have his characters so distorted as in his request to have his name removed from the Hitchcock movie made of his script, The Lifeboat, he specifically objected to the undignified stereotype that the Black character had been made into instead of the "purposeful and dignified" character he had written.   

It is also especially stupid to suspect Steinbeck would have had that motive, considering his character Crooks, in Of Mice and Men is probably the fullest, most human, most dignified but also, as a human, flawed Black man written by a white writer of that time or most of the previous or subsequent fiction by white writers.  Steinbeck giving Crooks his flaws was to elevate him to full human status instead of the typical strategy of having such a character be unrealistically noble and saintly - a fiction within a fiction.  To think the writer of that character would have a back story of the Joads that would have them participate in the white terrorist attack on Greenwood years before Grapes of Wrath takes place is ridiculous. 

Or you could be so delusional that you believe fictitious characters have a real existence apart from what their authors imagine and intend them to be.  Like those people who can't distinguish between the characters people play on TV and the actors saddled with TV program fame. 

This article John Steinbeck on Racism and Bigotry, ironically begins:

In September of 1936, young John Steinbeck (February 27, 1902–December 20, 1968) witnessed murderous riots in the streets of his Californian hometown — the result of a violent clash between the local lettuce growers and the migrant farm workers who had finally revolted against the inhumane conditions they had long endured. (Decades later, one such laborer would detail these horrific conditions in his conversation with Studs Terkel.) Animated by irrepressible compassion, Steinbeck set out to tell the migrants’ story and spent two years working on a manuscript titled L’Affaire Lettuceberg. But he held himself to so high a standard that he ultimately decided he had failed to live up to his humanistic duty and destroyed the manuscript — one of the most courageous acts for a creative person to perform.

He then started from scratch and embarked upon the most intense writing experience of his life thus far — a quest to give voice to these oppressed laborers, to celebrate the basic goodness and humanity of the so-called common people amid a culture than had tried over and over to dehumanize them. The result was his masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath (public library), published on April 14 of 1939, in which Steinbeck wrote:

"There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success … in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage."

Both populist and insurrectionist, both protest song and gospel, the book was instantly beloved by those who stood for equality and human rights, and instantly reviled by the Donald Trumps of the day, who saw it as a threat to the power structures that buoyed them.

And the irony, given the accusation against the Joads, increases as the article continues:

Steinbeck received a letter from a Reverend L. M. Birkhead, National Director of an organization called “Friends of Democracy,” claiming to combat Antisemitic, pro-Nazi propaganda. But Birkhead’s missive had a troubling undercurrent of bigotry. He asserted that The Grapes of Wrath had been called “Jewish propaganda” and implied that the only way to dispel such accusations would be for Steinbeck to prove that he is not Jewish — an accusation analogous to the conspiracy theories which “birthers” directed at President Barack Obama nearly a century later, stemming from the same soul-malady of which all bigotry is a symptom.

Steinbeck’s response to the Reverend, found in Steinbeck: A Life in Letters (public library), is a masterwork of moral wisdom and a sublime stance against bigotry, just as timely and perhaps — such is the tragedy of our time — even timelier today.

Steinbeck writes:

"Dear Mr. Birkhead:

I am answering your letter with a good deal of sadness. I am sad for a time when one must know a man’s race before his work can be approved or disapproved. It does not seem important to me whether I am Jewish or not, and I know that a statement of mine is useless if an interested critic wishes to ride a preconceived thesis… It happens that I am not Jewish and have no Jewish blood but it only happens that way. I find that I do not experience any pride that it is so.

If you wish — here is my racial map although you know what an intelligent anthropologist thinks of racial theories. As you will see, I am the typical American Airedale."

After outlining his genealogy, not without sarcastic jabs at the very notion that it is of any significance at all, Steinbeck adds:

"Anyway there it is. Use it or don’t use it, print it or not. Those who wish for one reason or another to believe me Jewish will go on believing it while men of good will and good intelligence won’t care one way or another. I can prove these things of course — but when I shall have to — the American democracy will have disappeared."

The Grapes of Wrath was awarded the Pulitzer Prize the following year and became a cornerstone of Steinbeck’s Nobel Prize two decades later. It endures as a one of the most significant works of social justice ever written.

Complement the thoroughly fantastic Steinbeck: A Life in Letters — the source of his timeless wisdom on falling in love and the art of the friend breakup — with the story of how the beloved writer used the diary as a tool of discipline and an antidote to self-doubt as he was writing The Grapes of Wrath.

I find it incredible that someone could hold college credentials and not bother to find out these things before they say such stupid things.   Though I'm not that surprised that a city boy wouldn't understand that the people who attacked and massacred the Black residents of Greenwood were city boys, certainly some of them inspired to join the resurgent KKK inspired by the movie he holds blameless for that,  Birth of a Nation.   The "great film's" impact in encouraging the rebirth of that extremely dangerous white terrorist group in America, not only in the former Confederacy but throughout the country is well documented, as I said earlier here, it was Hollywood promoting the racism that the movie industry has hardly shed.  And its refounding and it's promotion throughout the country was primarily city based.   From The History of the Klu Klux Klan in Olkahoma, by Carter Blue Clark

The motion picture The Birth of a Nation did much to rekindle the romantic image of the mission of hooded men in the night. Oklahomans went enthusiastically to view the movie when i t showed initially in 1915 through 1916, and they attended its reshowings in 1924. Kleagles adroitly used the movie and the novel from which the movie was made as a kind o f recruitment device. The impact of the new cinematic techniques o f director D, W, Griffeths highlighted the electrifying novel of Thomas Dixon, The Clansman.  It left the viewing audience with a sensitive
impression of the alleged depravities of newly emancipated blacks and carpetbag governments yielding to no power except the force  of the begowned Knights.

I will break in here to point out that the description is of the racist fiction of the novel and movie, a necessary thing to point out since even so many college-credentialed Americans are unable to understand the firm line between the inherent lies told about history in such fiction and reality, part of the power of lies, what makes allowing them so dangerous.

The efforts the Radical Republican Austin Stoneman (Thaddeus Stevens) to Africanize the South all but succeeded on the screen before the Klan stepped in to save white civilization from bestial barbarity to the strains of The Ride of the Valkeries  from the orchestra pit.  Actress Lillian Gish at the last minute was rescued from the evil clutches of Stoneman and of Reconstruction and returned to the tranquility of brocade and verandas under the watchful eye of the ghostly legions of the Klan.

Given that description of the action of the movie that reignited and spread the KKK, it should be remembered that, as so often was the case, that the excuse the white racists used to incite the attacks on the Black community in Tulsa was a black teenaged boy supposedly touching a white woman in an elevator.  The incident is variously reported but what seems to me most believable is that he tripped as he was going into an elevator and he may have touched a woman who was already in the elevator by accident.   Hollywood is very likely the source of tinder that was set off in the imaginations of racists who burned down Greenwood and murdered so many Black People.  It is ironic that the far different Hollywood product, the movie of The Grapes of Wrath - I doubt he read the book as I doubt more college-credentialed Americans have read the book as saw the movie - would not be seen as having a much different motive from the "great film" of the racist who made the movie or the racist lies in the novel it was inspired by.   

You can criticize Steinbeck for a lot of things, like even his admirable characters, he had his own, serious human flaws, but that use of him is as unfair as it is lunatic, especially considering how unusual he was for his time.  

I think what Trump meant was that nobody in his white circle of New Yorkers had ever heard of Juneteenth.   I'll bet no white people in Queens knew about it when he was growing up.  I'll bet most of them learned about it about the same time he did. 

Unbeautiful Losers

I am being asked to express an opinion about one of Simp's favorite stupid things to say, denying that he's a white man because he's Jewish, claiming that most Americans don't consider Jews to be white.  That he's white is a lot less debatable than that he's Jewish, I'd guess, not that I want to debate the second and to debate the first one is ridiculous.  I have never heard an American claim that Jews were not white except when it was the rare but unremarkable Jewish person who is not white, something which is, in fact, a somewhat more reported inverse phenomenon among racists in Israel.  

Jews, like just about every other largely white population in the United States, have never been discriminated against in this country like Native American People, Black People,  Latinos, Asians, and other People of Color have been.  They have not been discriminated against to the extent that even many groups of white people have at some times and in some places, Italians, Irish, French Canadians, and others who have been subjected to higher rates of discrimination and violence.   Anti-Catholic content figured in the Founding Fathers, complaints that George III wouldn't discriminate against Catholics in Canada to the extent they wanted to was part of the First Continental Congresses complaints,  John Jay, one of the fabled founders and a governor of New York wanted Catholics to be disenfranchised.  And he was hardly alone. 

I have, in the brief time since I got the request to weigh in, tried to find any proposed legal discrimination against Jews made by such eminent Americans as is contained in this record and have not found it.  I'd challenge Simps to produce it, keeping in mind that a lot of the anti-Catholicism had strong strains of anti-French-Canadian, anti-Irish and anti-Italian, Polish, etc.   content BUT KEEPING IN MIND THAT EVEN THESE LEVELS OF DISCRIMINATION PALE IN CONTRAST TO THE LEGAL AND WIDESPREAD HATED OF PEOPLE OF COLOR, quite a few of them Catholic, at times. 

Anti-Catholicism has deep roots in American political culture. A trace of its one-time prominence remains evident in the oath of allegiance for US citizenship. The oath of Allegiance requires prospective US citizens to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty". The "potentate" was the Pope.

Jay and other Americans of the revolutionary era cared little about Islam, and knew even less. On the other hand, anti-Catholicism enjoyed a vibrant career at all levels of American society. It was Jay, for example, who wrote the Continental Congress's 1774 address to the people of Great Britain. The address alleged that, with the Quebec Act, the British parliament's policy of religious toleration for Quebec Catholics advanced a plot against America. Recognising the right of Catholics to religious freedom in North America, Jay wrote, would encourage "swelling" waves of Catholic immigrants from Europe. It would soon "reduce the ancient free Protestant colonies" to a "state of slavery."

Approving Jay's address, the Continental Congress expressed its "astonishment" that parliament had recognised "a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world". The Quebec Act, Jay's address warned, might well lead to Britons themselves reduced to the "same abject state" of subjugation as the American colonists. In a war with more than its share of hyperbole, few flights of patriot conjecture surpassed the address to the people of Great Britain. Its combination of slander and speculation compelled the historian of Canada Gustave Lanctot to remark that Jay's "terror tactics did not exclude prophecy".

The fact that the author of such a menacing act of diplomacy as Jay's address to the people of Great Britain became the first United States secretary of foreign affairs speaks to the depth of American anti-Catholicism. From before the American Revolution through the 19th century (and beyond), anti-Catholicism was one of the few things that American Protestants shared. In 1750, Paul Dudley, the chief justice of Massachusetts supreme court, endowed the Dudleian lectures at Harvard College for the purpose of exposing the "idolatry … damnable heresies" and "abominable superstitions" of Rome. Even the great Hispanist William H Prescott, author of works on the history of Spain and Mexico admired in the Hispanic intellectual world, described his work as an investigation into a barbaric, backward world. In 1816, the same year that Jay advised Americans to elect "Christians", Prescott advised Protestants to write the histories of Catholic countries. It is, he wrote, "interesting employment for the inhabitants of a free country, flourishing under the influence of a benign religion, to contemplate the degradation to which human nature may be reduced when oppressed by arbitrary power and papal superstition".

In 1834, the influential Presbyterian intellectual Lyman Beecher's published A Plea for the West, a popular and sharply anti-Catholic tract. Beecher called on Protestants to settle the frontier and thereby save America from an alleged Vatican plot to take over the United States by peopling the west with Catholic immigrants. Rome, Beecher warned, would then direct Catholic settlers to elect priests, who, subverting the US national mission of freedom, would deliver America to the hands of the Vatican. A year earlier, when Beecher first preached A Plea for the West as a sermon, in Boston, it instigated an anti-Catholic mob that burned down St Benedict's, a local Ursuline convent and girls' school.

Jay, Prescott and Beecher had the same message. Catholicism had missed out on progressive historical development. It is not rational, but imprisoned in a benighted culture. Catholics are susceptible to malign clerical influence. They are perhaps not fit for American citizenship. They are certainly a threat to the US, and they are taking advantage of American freedom to live among us, plotting, dissembling. This discourse of conspiracy and counter-subversion has also, with some variations, been turned against Masons, Mormons, Bavarian Illuminati, communists and others, but it cut its teeth against, and for most of American history targeted, Catholicism. Its durability in American political culture is more suggestive of a brittleness in American nationality than it is revealing about the nature of America's alleged enemies.

More recent than that, when he joined the KKK, after its resurgence inspired by the movie Birth of a Nation, the future Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Hugo Black, helped get off a murdering protestant minister who had shot to death a Catholic Priest using open anti-Catholic bigotry during the trial, one of a number of such incidents that mirror the lynching of Leo Frank and several others, targeted probably because they were Jews.  Ironically, considering our brawl over the historical fact that Birth of a Nation was Hollywood inspiring the revival of that worst of American terrorist groups, some scholars believe the lynching of both Frank and other white victims of lynching during that period was, as well, inspired by the "great film".  

Interestingly, when you showed me what Stupy had said, it reminded me of the scene in the great but very uneven Leonard Cohen's quite dirty, sometimes quite beautiful, sometimes quite repellent novel, Beautiful Losers in which the chief character, "F" and the narrator come across a group of Quebec Independence demonstrators and "F" declares it beautiful because, "Because they think they are Negroes, and that is the best feeling a man can have in this century."  Remembering that Cohen wrote his book in 1966, about the same time Simp's has remained stuck in for the past fifty-four years.  I'd recommend anyone read the book for a view of a rather bizarre, I'd say flirting with racist, window into that kind of thinking.  It's clear that Cohen had issues with Catholicism but hardly the same kind that a bigot like Simps has.  

Psychology is too individual to get pinned down the way a habitual bigot like Simps wants it to be.  Bigots are bigots are bigots, they are bigots in some ways that are predictable in some cases, in other cases in ways you don't anticipate or have been prepared to expect from second-rate media and gossip.  Sometimes those bigots you want so much to be there aren't anywhere except in your own bigoted imagination and desires, especially if you want to feel special.  That's Simps, that last one.  He wants to feel special and he's not, he's just another bigot. 

Oh, I Don't Have To Say Which Side I Am On, I Can Despise Them All

Albert Maltz?  I've never written a word about him, specifically,  that I recall, why would I?  The closest I got was when I noted the Hollywood 10, as Stalinists supported one of if not the most murderous mass murderer of the modern era.   If Maltz had lived in his workers' paradise he'd have likely gotten purged by his hero, same if he lived in any of he other Marxist countries.   What they whined about the wrongs done to them here were mild compared to what their hero did to writers, artists, scholars, scientists and, hardly least of all workers and poor people.  They were idiots and assholes, no more moral than members of the American Bund.  Nah, I'm so over the commies of Hollywood, too many crocodile tears shed over them, already.

I'm not terribly interested in that over-wrought bit of morally ambiguous American history.  My anti-anti-communist antipathy is matched pretty much by my disgust for the Stainists and Trotsyites and Maoists, etc.  I don't have to choose a side, I can despise them all. 

Stupy always grasps at those same, well worn straws when he finally realizes he's made a public fool of himself.  Which is one of the reasons they're so worn.  That happens a lot since he picked a fight with me.   I always end up kicking his ass. 

I don't know if Maltz was one of the two of The 10 who Billy Wilder said had any talent or if he was one who he said was merely unfriendly.  I saw a few of the movies he wrote, I don't recall being wowed.  I figured he meant Trumbo and Lardner but I could be wrong. 

Wow, Simps attacked cat guy Bob?  In those terms?   Bob is one of the few really nice people at Eschaton and he's hatin' on him?

Simps needs to be evaluated for dementia.  His long term habit of lying like a Trump will make it complicated but he's gone round the bend. 

Quotes

Oh, I'd guess he believes they were all talking about him. 

On The Inadeuqacy Of Modern Education And Media Informed Culture

Time works in one direction, 

things happen before other things happen, 

one of those things that happens is that things come into being that weren't there before.  

Before they came into being they didn't exist.  

Things don't exist before they exist. 

And on top of not understanding how time works he doesn't understand how sets work.  

And he thinks he's such a big fat supporter of Charles Darwin when he can't even understand the most basic fact of how  things would have to be for evolution to work and the basic concept of species, which are sets.   

Truly, the American educational system is a decadent means of granting credential to paying customers.  I think that's generally the case among the English speaking people, these days.   Even the accredited ones are degree mills turning out idiots like that of whom it can only be said, in the words of William Cobbett:

his book-learning has only made him conceited.

Only, in the age of TV and the internet, they generally don't bother that much with books.  Such people often go into that degraded thing called "journalism" these days.  You don't have to actually know anything except what you are to say, the range of things which are to be said so that others can then say them.  To compound the irony. 

Stupy Proves The Link Between Extreme Stupidity and Extreme Dishonesty Is Made of Titanium

The self-retarded Teanecker apparently is lying about our brawl re THE MOVIE Alexander Nevsky which I, unlike the retarded Teanecker watched - to refresh any memories capable of it - his has always been rotted so can't be refreshed - he was so clueless about the movie that he thought there were Nazis in it, though it happened in the 13th century.  

I started out and repeated any number of times that I had liked Prokofiev's score for the movie but that the movie directed under extreme duress by Sergi Eisenstein was a piece of shit - something which I found a number of Eisenstein movie scholars agreed with, one saying it was one of the worst movies ever associated with a director of such repute.  It was not his fault because the Stalin crime machine had control of it, not him.  

Stupy is claiming I slammed the score which I never did and repeatedly said was very good, though unlike Stupes,I know something about music and h only knows what he believes to be kew-el or, rather, what's officially deemed to be so in the lower levels of the outer suburbs of the self-deemed sophisticates, he exists on the fringes of that fringe.  

I'll post more links to the whole thing if you want.  Including Stupy, after much effort on my part, twigging into the fact that he'd made a massive ass of himself, he being so used to doing that you have to hit him over the head with the fact of it before he notices.  He embodies the "concussed troll" mentioned as a simile for an extremely stupid person in the Harry Potter books. 

Stupy is having a tantrum because I dissed cop shows such as the blatantly racist, police-crime inciting genre is.  I'll bet he watches "Cops" and groves on the uniforms and guns and night sticks.  Maybe the presentation of People of Color on it, too. 

Stupy hates it when someone disses The Screen, his god, the god of his devotion and worship.  Which, I'll admit, is one of the reasons I do it whenever that impinges on a topic I'm addressing.  The guy is nothing if not a button that is easily pushed with totally predictable results.  He worships it even when it's part of the Murdoch empire, he shit his pants when I dissed Family Guy and its main . . . . um . . . "creator". 

Update:  That ass is pretending I meant "Hill Street Blues" to which I can only say how quaint, he's always been decades behind the times.  I mean, I haven't watched TV since they switched to HD and I know what's been on since the early 80s.  Otherwise, he's as big a liar as he is an idiot and so are his fan base at Eschaton, other than wise.