Some are, yes, but too many aren't. And look through her other posts and see the type of support she has.

https://substack.com/@drstaceypatton1865/note/c-273819656

That one for instance, just scroll through

I cannot understand white women's desire to need to like black people. It is the most bizarre thing. They'll twist themselves into knots excusing black people and being generally pro black. Not just liberals.

Also I don't know why any white people see black behavior as cool or something to emulate. It's again one of the most bizarre things to me. I noticed it with my parents with football. Behavior that they would hate in white people, they thought was acceptable in black people. Motioning to the crowd and being all showboat-y. If a white guy did it you'd see it as absurd. The coolest thing you can do after doing something impressive is not even acknowledge it.

Want to make yourself seem extremely lame? Point at yourself and thump your chest and do a dance after a touch down. I learned early on what was cool and what was not cool. Just like in movies, you know a guy is cool when he causes an explosion and walks slowly away not even looking at the explosion. When you let actions speak for themselves.

The lame guy in action movies, the comic sidekick, played by someone like Rob Schneider or Sean William Scott would be the guy who after doing something minor gloats about it while the main character, the action hero is rolling his eyes while actually saving the day.

But with black people, they act like the lame comic sidekick who gloats after every small victory. When Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) did this for the first time, at least the first time where it was highly noticeable and highly public, it was controversial and seen as unsportsmanlike. But the frog in the boiling water, now Cassius Clay would seem humble in comparison today and people don't bat an eye.

When a white person tries to talk black or act black I really wonder about their self image. It would be like wanting to emulate a Jerry Springer guest. How low do you view yourself naturally that a Jerry Springer guest is someone you'd want to model yourself after. Well same applies to white people who try to emulate ghetto aspects.

It's also why it's painful when I see British people talk anymore. Almost everyone has a chav accent when I see 2026 Britain. Long gone are the days of the Timothy Dalton's and the Roger Moore's. It's their own bit of ghetto-ification of white culture over there.

Please post this and have it pinned. I've needed something like this for blog I do. There's so many things, 99% I can't remember, and then counterproductively, the ability to search for things is horrible now, scrubbed via google

If this actually released, it would be a huge hit.

Big youtube livestreamers, even woke ones would stream it for the views. The woke ones would "mock it" and call it "rightwing propaganda" and "misinformation" and all that bullcrap, but they wouldn't be able to resist those sweet sweet views that streaming the game would bring.

All these streamers engaging with it on either side of the aisle would make tons of other people buy it, the hype effect. If you were an indie dev, this is literally all you'd have to make to bring in the cash like crazy as well as a pair of balls that doesn't back down once it gets a little heated.

I wish I had the ability to make games, program, etc. I have no skills to bring this to fruition. But if any of you do, moolah is waiting. Steam has allowed pretty controversial games, so I think it would probably pass.

Yeah, it has the energy of high schoolers who signed up for film class just for the heck of it but don't actually care or want to be in Hollywood but they're forced to make something so they go "here it is I guess" and the teacher gives them a C for at least turning something in.

KotakuinAction2 is literally a pop culture focused forum where you can discuss, talk about news, and otherwise about things that fit more in culture or pop culture than politics, and be assured that reddit faggotry won't dominate (I would say won't be there, but everyone knows there's probably a few secret leftists at any given scored community). Talking about movies and analyzing them deeply is a thing that's been happening on the internet since it's creation. And before the internet it's what film snobs would do at hangouts.

IMDB used to have forums for each individual movie. It was an amazing time. They axed it because you'd go and see narrative breakers of people discussing the movie in ways the studios didn't like and they couldn't have that; the peasants pointing out things the leftist establishment critics wouldn't, so they got rid of the only reason to ever visit IMDB.

I've seen it. While I don't dismiss his read, the thing about the Matrix and why it's good art is you can interpret it from many different lenses. As a Christian, I see a ton of Christian analogs. People are born enslaved (spiritually), blinded to the real world (Satan has a blindness on people that keeps them decieved), the world needs the Messiah to wake them up (the One and others preaching, where Morpheus would be a preacher), People cling desperately to their deception and that makes them dangerous (try preaching Christianity in Islamic countries and see what happens).

Then you have all the Biblical allusions. The ship is called the Nebechenezzer, the last city, the key most important place where the evil wants to destroy it and the savior wants to protect it is called Zion. Her name being Trinity = obvious Christian allusion.

If someone has a different framework, they view it a different way. That's what makes it good. Same thing with They Live. Commies watch they live and see John Carpenter's view which is "an attack on capitalism" and anti-Conservative. I watch They Live and I see a spiritual allegory whether it was intentional or not, about the principalities and powers that keep people deceived, the invisible war that only those with eyes to see can see. So I see again a Christian view, because he created something where you could have it up to interpretation.

They could have absolutely been going for an anti-white thing, but because the Matrix is so well written as an allegory you can interpret it anyway you want. It could just as easily be said that the reason for the white agents and guards is to create a visual "blankness" that leads to the disorienting feeling of not knowing who's an agent or not. All the white men have similar facial features and dark hair. It's not like they have white redheads, white blond people with blue eyes, white grey haired people. From the cops in the beginning, to the agents, to the military, they all have a "John Q generic look" which might be a way to evoke the feeling that anyone might be an agent.

While Wyatt Staggs analysis could be accurate, it would be more steel-manned and harder to reinterpret if the enemies were many different looking white people, as then the agenda would be obvious. But they all look like some variation of beat cop to FBI to military person, which is meant to disorient you visually as a possibility.

The movie came out in 1999. There were plenty of telephone booths. And I forgot that it's not just telephone booths, but it is always land line telephones, it just usually is telephone booths.

It's implied in Morpheus speech that the dawn of the 21st century was picked as the peak of human civilization for the Matrix simulation, so the theory is that time probably doesn't progress far past 1999 in the Matrix. It probably reaches a certain point and reboots in a loop without people realizing it happened as the real world is actually like 300-400 years in the future from 1999.

Could it be possible that humanity including Morpheus misunderstands what is happening?

Maybe they saw these human farms and drew the wrong conclusions. Maybe what's happening with humans from machines is more complex but they can't see the forest through the trees. Like if a medieval person came to 2026 and witnessed an airplane, they'd assume magic. Even the people most well versed in reading the matrix code don't begin to understand it.

Scientifically you're right that it's a plot hole but an in universe explanation might be that the battery thing is what the unplugged people jumped to as an idea of what's happening and it just kept getting passed along, but what's actually happening is much too complex for the humans to figure out but makes sense in the machines super computer brains

There might be a size limit on what you can spawn and where.

We never see them take in anything larger than a gun. The helicopter they use is one that already was there.

And the helicopter couldn't be just any helicopter, it had to have a minigun because you're dealing with agents. Those aren't on just any street corner or police station.

They essentially were spawning in to get to a helicopter, it's just spawning at a military base where a machine gun helicopter would be would probably be a further distance than the building where the military was already stationed.

That's a fair point, though to be fair, the Agents are limited in a lot of ways just like the humans are. Morpheus says "they're part of this system, which means they're always limited by this system, whereas the One won't be". It's possible just like the humans have tons of limitations, the agents also have a lot of limitations that are just natural limitations of the Matrix program. Like just how the humans can't teleport anywhere, the agents might be logistically restrained. They need humans to take over, and also remember this, the agents weren't that worried, because Cypher was supposed to kill everyone on board of the Nebechennezer ship. That's why the agent comes and tells agent Smith "the human failed" which is what made Agent Smith get really intense because they knew they were going to unplug Morpheus any moment.

The fact that they came to rescue Morpheus surprised the agents. The military was there as protection, but they never actually expected any resistance. If things had gone according to plan, Cypher would have killed everyone who was on the ship physically, then unplugged each person one by one who was in the Matrix, which he almost managed to do, so no resistance was expected. It was Cypher getting killed that scared the Agents because they figured they'd do the logical thing and unplug Morpheus. The fact that they were mounting a rescue was actually a relief to the agents because it meant they had more time for the truth serum to work.

That's another good point.

That's true too. If action movies always adhered to sensitivities they'd suck....which is why action movies suck now; and why every bad guy is now a Russian because "villains have to be people we hate them in real life, not just in a movie" and the action movies aren't testosterone fantasies anymore...they're liberal murder fantasies, which is why they leave such a bad taste in your mouth.

Both of you hit the nail on the head

Yeah, what I think is going on is that "here's how to be a non-toxic male" sort of thing that they push. Their worldview is, to be an acceptable man, you have to broadcast in obvious ways your "harmless" and castrated nature. Any voice modulation would confuse that message they're trying to get across. If it sounds alien and you can't pick up on the "gentleness" of him due the inhuman sound, then that message gets lost. The MESSAGE™ always comes first. They knew if they gave him a feminine or gay voice it would be too obvious and audiences would walk out. So they think "how do we make his voice kind of deep but still make him the "type of male we want men to consider acceptable", so the other deep sort of voice is like "whatever, you do you, YOLO, Imma just gonna smoke a bowl and, chill, watch some anime, and show my support for trans lives on Reddit every now and then". Like a Seth Rogan type in other words.

So voice modulated loses the point they want to push and feminine or high pitched makes it too obvious, so just semi bass tone voice (but with no edge or grit like Josh Brolin, James Earl Jones, Tony Todd, etc), somewhere around the Seth Rogen register to signal that if you're a "live and let's live" sort of "trans people are cool by me cause I'm just like chill and whatnot and got my weed", then you're a "good man". Any sort of voice that would sound "assertive" or "argumentative" aka non-feminine gets the axe.

But yes, it is hilariously bad. I've never seen that Orcs with normal voices, that's hilarious.

I've seen no clips or footage, or even a trailer of this "movie". I've only heard it sucks, and apparently feels like a made for TV special film.

This came across the feed titled "Hutts speak English now".

Notice the emptiness of the theater as the guy gets the camera in focus.

Anyways, yeah this hutt is Jabba's son, and he's all like "chill dude" and is nice and feeds baby Yoda. He speaks calmly in English. If they couldn't drive it home any further when baby Yoda approaches he says "Don't worry, I'm not my father".

I can see a troon writer from the writing room penning that line and going "take that dad, you bigot".

We all know that scene wasn't really about Jabba, was it.

It's all I watch. Columbo, Star Trek (only the 60s version), Buck Rogers, Andy Griffith show.

I don't want to be demoralized with entertainment.

So many classic shows and movies. A mediocre 1950s film is more interesting even from an anthroplological perspective of getting insight into what people valued and how (and it often is huge narrative breakers) than the best 2020s films.

On narrative breakers, if you watch old movies and shows, you'll quickly see that what they say about the time periods are totally wrong. Women get "sassy" with men. Women work as scientists or in the military in 1950s films and no one thinks it's weird (if you watch the TV show what's my line from the 1950s you'll see women had tons of jobs and no one was shocked no matter how upper eschelon it was...women were never prevented from working...it's just the incentive of being a stay at home mom was high and that's a good thing).

Same with black people. You'll be surprised the amount of black or at least non white roles and how they're treated. You'd be led to believe via narratives that non white roles in 1950s films would be akin to black face Al Jolson stuff.

No people are just in roles, and it's never really made a point of it being anything of significance. Which is how it should be. It's today where it's highly race conscious, where if there's a black character, the script will actually make it a point that they're black.

So yeah, old media is a great narrative breaker. And also because you realize, "well maybe that was just liberal Hollywood", but these films were watched by everyone, everywhere and there wasn't outcry or anger. Back then studios would not put in things if it hurt their bottom line. So the obvious inference is the average 1950s American wouldn't faint and break down if a non-white character was on screen or if a woman was working a job. The women would be feminine and not girlbossy which was great, the gender roles were in tact, but obviously America is not how the acacedmics describe it as if pulpy sci fi 1950s films show all sorts of things that shouldn't be according to their narratives as the audiences would rebel.

It's sort of like the Uhura kiss on Star Trek. The cast and crew were bracing for "racism". It made no impact. The woman who plays Uhura said she was presented with the "worst" feedback and it was a guy from Alabama saying "I don't believe in interracial relationships, however when an all American boy like Kirk has a beautiful woman in his arms, he goes with it". She noted that if that's the worse it got, they really miscalculated.

This is because 90% of the issues with black had to do with forcing integration. Americans didn't care that black people existed. They don't like when the country says "you have no freedom of association". That is a wrong that was done on the country. And the issue people take with that, was twisted into "Americans of the past hate black people". Even the straight up "racists" I would like to time travel to the 1950s and earlier and actually ask about their reasons. Because they would label us in the future "racists without cause" when we have extraordinary amount of cause based on our observance of black behavior. So I wonder what is the thing about the racists that aren't being told to us. Maybe Jebediah wasn't conscious of why specifically he disliked black people, but maybe his dad who had real observable reasons did.

Anyways, that was a long tangent and went all over the place, but I felt like getting on a tear.

Totally agree. I am pro-Trump, and I hate all the anti-Trump crap that's constantly around here, but that was the worst mistake he and his administration made. They (the left) were scattered, confused, didn't have a game plan. And we just handed them time and the ability to regroup and strategize. This is a war even if people don't recognize it and Sun Tzu would be shaking his head in embarrassment if he saw that fumbling.

Agreed. The best open world games are great, examples are like Just Cause 2, WB open world games (Mad Max, Arkham Series), Saints Row series, Mafia 2, heck I even like Mafia 3 despite the wokeness and I don't understand the complaints about how you progress the world in that game; to me it's satisfying. Almost every open world game I consider one of my favorites, like none are Ubisoft. I think the first Watch Dogs is excellent however, so they sometimes have exceptions. But I could go on with stuff like Fallout 3, Infamous, etc.

These are all amazing open worlds. Why? The open world plays to the gameplay strengths.

Ubisoft is just copy and paste. It feels like filler. When I'm 100% Mad Max, none of the activities feel like filler. It feels like I'm becoming the legend that is Mad Max. With Ubisoft, everything feels like filler. I don't know why it's such the case with them as opposed to others. Other companies also have many collectibles. Other companies also have repeating side activities. But there's something about Ubisoft where it all runs together and you feel like you're in gaming Limbo where other games pull it off somehow.

I hate cats, and no our family have always had dogs, and we have one dog now, as the last one died about a month ago.

Like I said, I love animals including dogs, and while I say I hate cats, I don't really hate cats, I just think they're so much worse than dogs. But really there's no animal I dislike. I just don't get weapy about animals dying. There's things that make me tear up, like certain Twilight Zone episodes due to their poignancy, but I don't have a Pavlovian reaction to animals dying.

Now Futurama did it right with the episode about the dog. That episode is devestating and it has nothing to do with an animal dying. It's one of the saddest dang episodes I've ever seen from any TV show.

John Wick is, like all modern action heroes "a nice man". He's polite, he's never politically incorrect. I have an article I'm going to write contrasting John Wick to someone like the Transporter played by Jason Statham.

The Transporter isn't nice, knows about a sex trafficking ring and doesn't care. He only gets involved when it becomes too intertwined with his life that he has too. He actually takes a sex trafficked woman, puts her on the street for her to be picked up again. As he's driving away he reluctantly picks her back up and takes her to his home where he still treats her like crap because she's an inconvenience to him. And after all that, he still refuses to help her rescue her other family because it's not his problem. Only after more time in the story and other personal stakes does he finally become a hero. Action heroes are not good people who do things out of altruism, they are selfish people who via proper scripting are compelled towards making a good turn with well written justification. It's not meant to make you go "something should be done about this" as an audience. It's meant to make you believe a hardened criminal would be compelled to become a hero based on all the events that transpire.

The weak guy who gets browbeaten by his ex wife and scolded for not getting enough of a good gift in Taken, is not the same guy who goes Rambo in a foreign country in that same movie later. Modern movies want their cake and eat it too. Men must be killers with a past, but also nice and politically correct.

In the first Transporter, the first 4 or so action scenes are not motivated by altruism. The first one is motivated by pay (transport criminals for pay), the second for survival (fight cops or go to jail), the third by revenge (guy blows up his car, he comes to beat some faces in) and the fourth by survival again as the guys come to kill him in his home. Once he gets to safety Frank Martin is done with the whole ordeal, and tells the Asian woman who's trafficked, it's not his problem. Eventually he does agree to help her when she keeps persisting to eat away at his conscious.

That's the script getting you to believe the man who is capable of action that puts their life in danger and the man willing to do it can be one in the same and it takes heavy script lifting to get you to suspend that disbelief, as it rarely plays out in that way in real life. There's a difference between in real life when a guy intervenes in a fight to help someone, compared to action movies where they're facing off against a crime syndicate single handedly. The latter essentially never happens in real life, but they expect you to believe it happens by average "nice men" such as Liam Neeson in Taken. And rather than justifying it, the screenwriting trick is to say "he looks nice, but he has a past". This is telling, not showing.

In the Equalizer, another nice guy action hero, Denzel gets involved because sex trafficking is wrong and he sees a woman he likes getting sex trafficked. That's not an action hero motivation. Action heroes don't get involved because they see something the audience also doesn't like. They get involved when the script justifies that this is the logical point they'd get involved, typically reluctantly. JCVD in Hard Target knows about the killing games going on at a certain point, but he doesn't choose to put an end to them. He is forced to because his investigation catches their interest and they start chasing him, so the whole movie is him fighting for survival. He didn't even want to help the woman find her dad, but only did when the job he was going for was all filled up. That's the difference in how things are written now. Actions are taken based on if the audience would want to see it compared to logically written actual action heroes where actions are taken in proportion to how the script has carried them at this point in the movie in line with their characterization.

Almost every action hero from the 80s or 90s and earlier can be seen to have logical script writing justification for their actions, whereas the modern action heroes are "nice" who just are waved away as "they have a past and that's why they can do all this", which doesn't carry explanatory power as to why they would do all this. In reality, a retired hitman like John Wick would not come out of retirement for a dead dog, no matter how much he loved his wife. It's poor script writing and it's a case of having your cake and eating it too.

If you want an example of what I mean by John Wick is a nice man, watch the movie Warriors from 1979. The Warriors gang are the protagonists. They're still criminals, one of them is an attempted rapist, and the main leader, Swan pretended like he was going to rape the female love interest. They're not "good" people, they're just merely the people you root for because of their circumstance. If the Warriors were made today, Swan would never get "rape-y" with that hispanic broad. They'd have to be a politically correct "nice guy gang" who can kill people, but would never say the word faggot for instance.

And that's my point about John Wick. John Wick would never demean a minority or demean a woman, neither would Liam Neeson in Taken. Frank Martin from the Transporter does. He's disrespectful to an Asian woman throughout the movie, treating her like a nuisance.

So my point is the characterization of action heroes is at odds with what they're expecting you to believe they'd choose to do.

When superheroes do altruistically good, we understand that the risk to their life is proportionally small, which is why the early parts of the heroes helping out citizens is just portrayed as power fantasy, and not as supernaturally altruistic. The dilemmas for the superheroes have to be introduced by super villains that up the stakes where the choice to be altruistic actually has consequences in proportion to their superhero abilities.

In case you misremembered and thought I was exaggerating about softening Chewbacca to Winnie the Pooh levels.

A lot of things get criticized about the Disney Star Wars, rightfully so, but the abomination they did on Chewbacca gets lost in the mire. Compare how they look. It's egregious. If there wasn't so much other bullcrap with those movies, more people would talk about it. It's a "look how they massacred my boy" situation.

The Disney one looks like if I asked chat GPT to design a homosexual wookie. Literally. It's the only way I can describe it. Like his eyes and bone structure look gay, literally. They somehow managed to make Chewie look like a 50 year old woman with too much botox and plastic surgery. It's like you could imagine Joan Rivers hiding underneath all that fur if you shaved it.

The original he looked feral, not that he wasn't lovable, because he was, but he had a feral look to him.

This new one, I'd be less worried he'd rip my arms off and more on edge thinking any moment he's going to try to give me "fashion tips so I can glow up".

I feel you on the conspiracy thing. People don't feel like people anymore. Now part of that is im terminally online. That skews your perception of reality. But peoples reaction to covid broke my mind in a big way with non online people too.

But yeah the Internet feels foreign, alien, inhuman. I can't envision the audience or who it's made for or their mindsets. While generation gaps have always existed I feel like there'd be less of "these are aliens" feeling between grandparent and grandson than there is between "content creator and their audience" vs normal not pod people.

No, I'm saying that those who do not have the Holy Spirit, they all adhere to the world system, whether they be Jew or Chinese, or Indian.

The point I was making was that they behave like all others without the Holy Spirit when those people get into powerful positions. The disbelieving side of my white family takes an anti-white stance. That's because it's the spirit of the current age.

Why should we expect disbelieving Jews to be any different?

My distinction with Orthodox Jews wasn't that they have the Holy Spirit, it's that they have some guardrails that do not promote degeneracy and the decay of the west like atheist Jews do. Japanese, Conservative secularists (like Anthony Cumia), and Orthodox Jews all have the same lack of Holy Spirit, and all will be in hell if they don't repent and turn to Christ, but the real pushers of degeneracy are the ones who have no code except for the code of the current age. Anthony Cumia, most people in his position are leftists and have no moral code. He is conservative and has a moral code, thus he defends white people, and attacks wokeness. That won't save him; but it does mean he's not one of the wokeness pushers.

Orthodox Jews who by not being Christians means they don't have the Holy Spirit generally aren't aggressively anti-white, pro-degeneracy, etc. They are more traditional and as such they have more allignment on traditional values and oppose wokeness.

As far as the 80% being democrat. Jews are a small population. And of that population the majority of them are not powerful. The democrats who are powerful are big pushers of wokeness. The average Jew who works a tech job and lives in a suburb trying to raise a family, I am skeptical of the idea that he's aggressively anti-white in the way college activists are. He may vote democrat come election time, but I think the average Jew basically just tries to carve out a semblence of a life in whatever field they're in.

The reason is I've met Jewish neighbors. They seem like your average normie. Black people? You can see it on their face that they hate whitey. That's why when I see black people voting democrat I know it's a direct 1:1 "We hate white people" thing. I don't get that from Jews I've encountered.

There's two types of Jews I've never met. Powerful Jews and Orthodox Jews. Neither are good representatives of the whole. Of the average Jew, the one just trying to raise a family in a suburb, they seem to me like Americans, not like these radical marxists.

And that's why I'm not a famous youtuber. If I was smart with the algorithm I would have gone with your idea