An Unenviable Situation

Tuesday, July 07, 2020

How Netflix Beat Hollywood to a Generation of Black Content
In the summer of 2015, Black employees at Netflix produced a memo and PowerPoint presentation to make the case that the company was missing an opportunity with Black audiences. They argued in the documents, which I obtained, that Netflix risked missing a boom defined by “Empire” at Fox and “Black-ish” and “How to Get Away With Murder” on ABC. At the time, the memo estimated, only about two million Black households were subscribing to Netflix — 5 percent of its total subscribers. It said that Black households were a $1.4 billion revenue opportunity and that few of Netflix’s top 100 shows, popular across other groups, were resonating with Black audiences. The memo cited “the (lack of) depth in our Black content catalog,” and said Netflix was spending more money on programming for British people and anime fans than for Black Americans.

They made their arguments to Mr. Sarandos and his team in a conference room full of executives in the second half of 2015, two people who were there said. Crucially, they showed statistics suggesting that licensed Black content was, in the company’s terminology, “efficient,” meaning that it was driving above-average viewership for every dollar spent.
see below, etc.

Monday, July 06, 2020

Corey Robin
Why would a liberal opposed to the Hobbesian vision of absolute power resort to such a Hobbesian style of argument? Because Montesquieu, like Hobbes, lacked a positive conception of human ends, true for all people, in which to ground his political vision. Montesquieu’s liberalism was not the egalitarian liberalism of the century to come, nor was it the conscience-stricken protoliberalism of the century it had left behind. Unlike Locke, whose argument for toleration was powered by a vision of religious truth, and unlike later figures such as Rousseau or Mill, whose arguments for freedom were driven by secular visions of human flourishing, Montesquieu pursued no beckoning light.
Osita Nwanevu quotes David Brooks
The American dream of equal opportunity, social mobility and ever more perfect democracy cherishes the future more than the past. It abandons old wrongs and transcends old sins for the sake of a better tomorrow. This dream is a secular faith that has unified people across every known divide. It has unleashed ennobling energies and mobilized heroic social reform movements. By dissolving the dream under the acid of an excessive realism, you trap generations in the past and destroy the guiding star that points to a better future.
“Excessive realism”—a remarkable phrase in the service of a remarkable argument.
Count me in favor of excessive realism. Nwanevu is still more interested in "Truth".

Nwanevu restates Brooks' title blankly –“Listening to Ta-Nehisi Coates While White”– all of them blind to the irony of a self-identified white man claims a right to return to the Middle East.

Watching high-achieving children of dark skinned immigrants, Nwanevu and Jilani, debating and celebrating the American Dream
The word “liberalism” has grown many bizarre and contradictory appendages and meanings over the years, particularly in the United States, but the original ideas central to it are fairly clear. Liberalism is an ideology of the individual⁠. Its first principle is that each and every person in society is possessed of a fundamental dignity and can claim certain ineradicable rights and freedoms. Liberals believe, too, in government by consent and the rule of law: The state cannot exercise wholly arbitrary power, and its statutes bind all equally.

Overall, the liberal ideal is a diverse, pluralistic society of autonomous people guided by reason and tolerance. The dream is harmonious coexistence. But liberalism also happens to excel at generating dissensus, and some of the major sociopolitical controversies of the past few years should be understood as conflicts not between liberalism and something else but between parties placing emphasis on different liberal freedoms⁠—chiefly freedom of speech, a popular favorite which needs no introduction, and freedom of association, the under-heralded right of individuals to unite for a common purpose or in alignment with a particular set of values. Like free speech, freedom of association has been enshrined in liberal democratic jurisprudence here and across the world; liberal theorists from John Stuart Mill to John Rawls have declared it one of the essential human liberties. Yet associative freedom is often entirely absent from popular discourse about liberalism and our political debates, perhaps because liberals have come to take it entirely for granted.
No mention of freedom of wealth and property, and libertarianism, the thread that links most of the people he's talking about.
The word “liberalism” has grown many bizarre and contradictory appendages and meanings over the years, particularly in the United States, but the original ideas central to it are fairly clear. 
They were never clear, or non-contradictory.
Within the present economy, more and more companies are beginning to make strategic and superficial concessions on race and other issues. How important can a movement be, it’s often been asked, if the most heinous corporations and institutions in the world can glom onto it and earn praise for meaningless statements and gestures?
They're not meaningless as all. Racism was once good for business, and now it's not.

Nwanevu has the most detailed LinkedIn page I've ever seen, and it's up to date. He got 710 on his English SAT and was a "Peer Trainer" with the ADL.
Jilani likes to point out the Nigerians are the most successful immigrant community in the US.

Jilani, and Williams quoting Julian Benda
Yes, you can work with people for years without drinking with them on the weekends. Black people work with racists.  Jews work with anti-Semites.

All told, liberal society in the U.S. is, at best, just over half a century old: If it were a person, it would be too young to qualify for Medicare.
According to his LinkedIn page, Nwanevu maxed out every AP test but World History.  And in 2012 he was an intern for Tim Kaine.

Sunday, July 05, 2020

From Star Wars to Star Trek
I wrote about the enduring radicalism of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and what it seeds in its premise--the idea that without greed and scarcity, there are inner and outer worlds to explore in freedom...

i fucking loved TNG and how gentle and kind everyone was and how enthusiastic about my nascent Trekkie journey... it reminded me of the post-scarcity world of the enterprise-D
Eoin Higgins defends the looting of shops but not presumably Hollywood sound-stages, or maybe Hollywood homes. Talia Lavin wants to defund the police but fantasizes a benign universalist military, Trump's "Star Force" by Gene Roddenberry.

The only interesting things about the remodeled shows was the transition in Jewish characterization from Vulcan to Ferengi and the insinuating Jesuitical sleaze of the Vorta.

Angry bourgeois left-liberals celebrate that adolescent antics of "autonomous zones". Like Occupy Wall St, the same old hippie utopian shit. The maturity of Wisconsin is forgotten. And the critical response is lead by the same boosterish defenders of America and Americanism.

By coincidence I just rewrote a bit near the end of the manuscript, adding the reference to John Romer.

The theory of The Extended Mind says that since we orient ourselves in the world by means of objects in the world, our minds themselves extend outward. In the words of Andy Clark of the University of Edinburgh, the human mind has never been “bound and restricted by the biological skin-bag.”[i]  Hatred of the physical self is one of the founding precepts of futurism in the computer age, but in this new fantasy of  hypertrophied individualism, not only do we find “the other” in ourselves, we find the world.  I’ve parodied it a few times, in the characters a of jaded professor answering an enthusiastic student, and the same student with his girlfriend who’s lost patience.

"Put your cell phone on my desk. [crushes the cell phone with a hammer] Now put your hand on the desk."
"No baby... please... I understand you... you're a part of me! I have an extended mind!"

This fantasy relates directly to Actor Network Theory and Bruno Latour’s “Collective”, a self expanded not only to the world around it but to the world as a whole. Latour’s fantasy is of an extended, universal, benign self. It’s rhetoric, not logic, but it’s the rhetoric of expansion when humility is if anything the rhetoric of reticence.  His collective includes non-voting members, obliterating distinctions central to self-government, a fitting parallel to Paul Romer’s idea of Charter Cities.[ii] If we’re all equal, some are more equal than others.  Why not imagine ourselves as humanists once did, as small, with burdens of both responsibility and tolerance? But all humility being false –Derridian ostentation– the problem remains. In the end there can be no humanism without irony. Saying “I love you” means nothing absent the agreement of another human being.  The other is the chimera in the mind of an adolescent boy who talks endlessly about himself while claiming to be talking about the girl of his dreams. All of these philosophies, in the name of the primacy of ideas and theory and the self-regarding optimism of their authors, ignore the practice of adversarialism in daily life, from the schoolyard to the theater of politics and law, all built in the tacit admission that all that is fully common in the human world is form.

Technocracy demands that the majority replace the world of experience, of conflicting obligations judged by each of us as individuals, with an inflexible model of rules: all of us limited to an identical internally consistent ideology of self.  The model is authoritarian.  

[i] Andy Clark, Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence, OUP 2003
quoted in John Sutton, "Exograms and Interdisciplinarity: History, the Extended Mind, and the Civilizing Process", in The Extended Mind, MIT Press, 2010
[ii] Sabastian Mallaby, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty”, The Atlantic, August 2010

Saturday, July 04, 2020 has been hounding me to start paying. If I were an academic or if my name were something more common I wouldn't bother but I put the thing up there hoping people would read it, and they were offering half price to find out who my readers were.

I was sort of shocked. I don't care about Peter Ludlow; he probably searches for his name. But there are people I was happy to see, and readership has picked up over the last few months. The site records if someone read 5 pages or 150, came by once or three times, or downloaded it.  I'd asked Joseph Koerner to look at it if he had time. Thomas Crow read it last week. How did he find it?  Some other major players. A historian responsible for the US Pavilion at the Biennale. A Professor of European Thought at UCL. Someone with a long history at the BFI. An old friend of an old friend, mentioned and quoted in the piece. New readers almost every day. That's hope I guess.

I've sent a few polite notes out asking for comments from people who I know read the whole thing.  I'm not expecting much.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

"What's possible in other counties is impossible here, but some things impossible elsewhere are possible here."

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

"Behind the chiliasm of modern man, is the megalomania of self-infinitization."

From 2017. I've changed the ending a bit. Lemmy now gets the last word.

I keep thinking of this as a primer: easy to understand, almost obvious, like a lecture in images. I could run down the references and conflicts it it describes point by point. But I think no one gets the joke. And that's why Lemmy gets the last word.

Ubiquitous images of modernity: the grid and the individual imagination; universalism and one point perspective; ideologies of objectivity and subjectivity; fantasies of reason and resulting psychosis; rationalism and irrationalism, but also rationalism vs empiricism, pedants vs ironists, philosophers vs comedians and lawyers.
My lords, ladies and gentleman, we are here also to honour Mr. Fred Timson, leader of the Timson clan, that vast family of South London villains, petty thieves and receivers of stolen property. But, no violence in your record Fred right?
That’s right Mr. Rumpole. 
Mr. Timson conducts his life according to strict monetarist principles. 
So I do Mr Rumpole.
He does not believe in the closed shop. He believes that shops should be open at all hours of the night, preferably with a jemmy.   
Too right Mr Rumpole! 
But, without Fred Timson and his like, how many of us would be out of work? How many brother judges? How many of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in  law? How many Coppers? How many humble Old Bailey Hacks? Indeed, we may all be bundled out under the embankment in cardboard boxes…So my lords, ladies and gentleman, charge your glasses, Henry, fill'em up! I give you a toast to Fred Timson and the criminals of England!
The Museum of Capitalism. The quote is Daniel Bell.
I have to keep trying.

Sunday, June 21, 2020

NYT: Roosevelt Statue to Be Removed From Museum of Natural History.

David Hammons, Public Enemy, 1992 
see previous

Friday, June 19, 2020

Three nights walking in Central Park in late 2014. Still incomplete. The beat changes, speeding up a bit in the second section. I'll use something more complex for next sections. It's all ongoing. In a lot of the shots the color is still unresolved. I like shooting in Log; it gives you a lot of options. It's the record of an eye in motion and time. It's a stringout that I'm trimming, slowly.

Wiseman,  "observational  cinema", "Slow cinema" and the "Sensory Ethnography Lab". etc.

Thursday, June 18, 2020


Imagine NY Times Editorial Board meetings under an autographed portrait of Jefferson Davis 
His diary includes the text of a letter Herzl wrote to Cecil Rhodes, shortly after the infamous Briton had colonized the land of the Shona people in Africa – whose land he claimed and renamed Rhodesia. “You are being invited to help make history,” Herzl wrote to Rhodes. “[I]t doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor; not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial… [Y]ou, Mr. Rhodes, are a visionary politician or a practical visionary… I want you to.. put the stamp of your authority on the Zionist plan and to make the following declaration to a few people who swear by you: I, Rhodes have examined this plan and found it correct and practicable. It is a plan full of culture, excellent for the group of people for whom it is directly designed, and quite good for England, for Greater Britain…."
When I was on twitter I got most of my news from foreign sources or people with direct social and personal connections out. Very few where were American beyond first or second generation.
He's talking about the NYT.
Left-wing secularists in Lebanon are in a bloc with Hezbollah. I can't think of another country other than Israel where the "left" wouldn't understand and agree.

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Because he's in the news.  Jilani, Taibbi. etc

I've always said Chomsky will be remembered for his empiricism as an amateur journalist rather than the arch-rationalism that defines his dated theories of language, but his reportage is pretty basic stuff. He's the Jack Webb of anarcho-syndicalism.  Rationalism wins out in the end, and with it a kind of purblind stupidity. He's the archetypical pedant. There's no way in hell in which he's an "intellectual".

Chomsky to W.D. Rubenstein, quoted in Rubenstein, "Chomsky and the New-Nazis", Quadrant
Volume 25 Issue 10 (Oct 1981)
I see no anti-semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-semitic implications in Faurisson's work, and find your argument to the contrary ‘puzzling and unsatisfactory’ to put it in mildest terms.
Chomsky responding a to question about the quote above. "Circa 1989-1991"
The “statement” to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue.

The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler’s anti-gypsy genocide are an “exploded fiction.” In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler’s treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists.

...You ask whether one wouldn’t at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you.

Faurisson was a Holocaust denier. He wasn't quibbling about methods.

To value the lives of one group over others is bigotry, so we can conclude that the AJC and ASI are in fact anti-Gypsy racists, as we can conclude that Zionists who conquered Palestine were racists.

"I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals..."

You're either willing to psychologize or you aren't. To ascribe motives is to ascribe beliefs.

Some people may be so committed to their own innocence that they refuse to acknowledge the historical record. What does that say about them?

repeats: Deborah Lipstadt and other self-hating Jews.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Moved to the top after the decision in Bostock v. Clayton County

John Cena and the WWE are not the "fast radicalizing left".  Neither are the vast majority of protestors. Via Timothy Burke, @Bubbaprog, the man who made this.

The video's from 2016
No shit
Black Lives Matter sentiment is essentially a militant expression of racial liberalism....Black Lives Matter is a cry for full recognition within the established terms of liberal democratic capitalism.

Cedric Johnson is associate professor of African American Studies and Political Science at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Zionism site:

Binary logic

Partial repeat

Wesley Yang: "Can you play poker at the highest level without mastering the math? I have no poker skill and very minimal practice, but I do have total emotional detachment and an excellent poker face."

"I have total emotional detachment" says the man who identified with a mass murderer

In this country, anyone who claims to be interested in politics as an idea is a moralist.

You must look through the surface of American art, and see the inner diabolism of the symbolic meaning. Otherwise it is all mere childishness.

Monday, June 15, 2020

In re: "Diversity blather"
Silberman’s post, which went out widely to scores of Court staff and judges, sat unanswered over the next day, until the first volley was sent back not by a fellow judge but by a clerk: courtroom employees who work directly with judges to research and write their opinions.

“Hi Judge Silberman,” began the career-risking reply-all email, “I am one of only five black law clerks in this entire circuit. However, the views I express below are solely my own,” they went on. “Since no one in the court’s leadership has responded to your message, I thought I would give it a try.”
[M]y maternal ancestors were enslaved in Mississippi. While the laws of this nation viewed my ancestors as property, I view them as hostages. In a hostage situation, when someone does something that leads to the freeing of the hostages, I am not sure if the hostages would be concerned as to whether the person that saved them, actually intended to save them. In this instance, as people considered to be property, my ancestors would not have been involved in the philosophical and political debates about Lincoln’s true intentions, or his view on racial equality. For them, and myself, race is not an abstract topic to be debated, so in my view anything that was built to represent white racial superiority, or named after someone who fought to maintain white supremacy (or the Southern economy of slavery), see Photo of Liberty Monument attached, should be removed from high trafficked areas of prominence and placed in museums where they can be part of lessons that put them in context. ...
Experience is substantive. The need for diversity is not about fairness; it's about epistemology.
Adolph Reed, McWhorter, Leiter, Jilani, Henry Farrell –a long list.

Jilani: If our ancestors survived colonialism we can survive a racist editor. "Shhh..."

It's so easy to destroy Jilani, but no one does it.  People don't speak directly. His universalist anti-identity-politics schtick falls flat, from Bari Weiss to Batya Ungar-Sargon on "moral panic". Moral panic is all they're good for. The facts are there but no one shoves them in his face.

He deleted the tweet.
If you screen grab a video on Netflix you get a black screen, but subtitles come through.

Saturday, June 13, 2020


Journalism's Top Ethics Expert Isn't Concerned With Right and Wrong
As journalists wage a civil war, America's leading media ethicist doesn't seem to quite understand what anyone is fighting about.
Last Wednesday, The New York Times published an op-ed in which Republican senator Tom Cotton called for a military crackdown on citizens protesting against police killings of Black people. It was an incendiary argument packed with lies the newspaper's own reporters had already debunked. The decision to publish it led to revolt inside the Times' newsroom, and, four days later, the resignation of Opinion editor James Bennet, until then reportedly in the running to take over the paper.

Outside the Times, journalists would in days to come deride the paper's decision to publish the op-ed. Osita Nwanevu of The New Republic traced the debacle to the Times' insistence on promoting illberal ideas in the name of liberal ideals, predicting that the paper will "continue to publish the opinions of a right that openly disdains the principles underpinning a free press and a free society." Vox's David Roberts wrote that the op-ed shouldn't have been published "because it reflects a worldview incompatible with the baseline small-l liberal values that make the Times's work, and journalism generally, possible." Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, herself a former Times public editor, criticized the publication of the op-ed and took the occasion to argue that whatever the merits of assiduous neutrality in theory, there is no such thing in practice. "Every piece of reporting—written or spoken, told in text or in images—is the product of choices," she wrote. "We choose what to focus on, what to amplify, what to investigate and examine."

The day after the op-ed was published, Kelly McBride, America's foremost expert on media ethics, shared with me a very different opinion, more in line with that of the people inside and outside the Times decrying the episode as a triumph of "safetyism." McBride wouldn't have published it had she been in charge of the section, she said, because it was "crappy" and “intellectually dishonest.” As she saw it, though, publishing controversial and unpopular arguments, like one that the government should use military force to deny protesters the ability to exercise First Amendment rights, is important in order to ensure a robust "marketplace of ideas."

By this logic, of course, the Times is unjustly denying the public the ability to debate the virtues of cannibalism, or of the United States becoming a Communist state, or whether people killed in mass shootings are really crisis actors, or any number of other unpopular ideas whose adherents aren't given some of the limited space available in its Opinion section. Further, the issue wasn't whether Times readers should be informed of Cotton's positions, which were already well-known; a news article in which they were described critically and contextualized would have caused no controversy. The issue, as critics had it, was that the paper turned their platform over to him so that he could make an inherently illegitimate argument, unchallenged.
"As she saw it, though, publishing controversial and unpopular arguments, like one that the government should use military force to deny protesters the ability to exercise First Amendment rights,..." Ignoring the looting as opposed to reporting the looting and arguing that the cops made things worse, or that the cops themselves ignored it.

It's fair to claim that Cotton's claim about antifa had been "debunked", but the looting was real enough. A friend and his wife were trapped in their home with people trying to smash in their door.  And I've spent the last week reading defenses of looting and violence written by people who decry Cotton's op-ed.

"The issue, as critics had it, was that the paper turned their platform over to him so that he could make an inherently illegitimate argument, unchallenged." And who's to judge what's inherently illegitimate? McBride called Cotton's op-ed "crappy" and “intellectually dishonest.” I like that.
Pulitzer Prize for "Commentary" has gone to...
...Bret Stephens, Thomas Friedman, Charles Krauthammer and, this year, Nikole Hannah-Jones.
And now Taibbi has joined in, defending the journalism of "truth". In this country, anyone who claims to be interested in politics as an idea is a moralist.
The phrase "the marketplace of ideas" founds adversarialism in the market, as if greed didn't need an adversary.

Remember Osita Nwanevu and "The Enemies of Truth"
He's a good reporter but you don't you need a graduate degree from the University of Chicago to be a hack. It just gets in the way. He's got a great career ahead of him as a self-important mediocrity.
The public seems to be ignoring anarchists, looters and concern trolls. Wasow is now covering his ass, and academics find new just-so stories to replace the old ones.  "In my book, tentatively titled..."
Over two weeks after the protests against the killing of George Floyd began, America remains firmly in the year 2020. 1968, with its sustained chaos and broad white backlash, is still a distant memory and, one hopes, a less potent allusion for our times. But many are still determined to believe the demonstrations we’ve seen will take a toll on the Democratic Party and the American left. Disdain for the protests on the right was carried into this week by National Review’s Kyle Smith on Monday. “After more than two months of frustration and boredom stemming from the lockdowns, the riots looked like a combination of outburst, festival, and religious observance,” he wrote. “The new religion is anti-racism; displaying one’s devotion requires mass gatherings, displays of self-mortification.”

This will likely be the image of the protests the president and his backers continue pushing through the election; the possibility of a campaign focused on these uprisings has scared some liberals from the outset. “The bulk of [Trump’s] comments have focused on ending protesters’ violence rather than addressing the cause behind the demonstrations, with invocations of the upcoming presidential election,” Vox’s German Lopez wrote last week. “If that works to get Trump reelected, the protests almost certainly won’t accomplish the policy changes that many movement leaders want. We don’t know if history will repeat itself, but there are signs that it could.”

But there are already signs that it isn’t. Polls since the protests against the killing of George Floyd began have consistently shown broad public support for the movement.

One of the latest, published Tuesday by The Washington Post, shows 74 percent of Americans support the protests, including a 53 percent majority of Republicans. That poll also produced a figure much more striking than the headline result. While the Post found that Americans were about evenly divided on the question of whether the protests have been mostly peaceful or mostly violent, a 53 percent majority of those who believed the protests were mostly violent supported them anyway. The Post also reported that 69 percent of Americans believe Floyd’s killing reflected “broader problems in treatment of Black Americans by police.”

That finding, the Post’s Scott Clement and Dan Balz wrote, “marks a significant shift when compared with the reactions in 2014 to police killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Mo., and New York.”

All this is consistent with another survey published Wednesday in The New York Times, which showed that support for Black Lives Matter has jumped dramatically since the protests began. “Over the last two weeks, support for Black Lives Matter increased by nearly as much as it had over the previous two years, according to data from Civiqs, an online survey research firm,” the Times’ Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy wrote. “By a 28-point margin, Civiqs finds that a majority of Americans support the movement, up from a 17-point margin before the most recent wave of protests began.”
What a list.

Friday, June 12, 2020

Jean-Marie Straub, 2020. Text: Georges Bernanos, from La France Contre Les Robots, 1947.
"pour Jean-Luc"

Famous leftist filmmaker uses the words of a Catholic monarchist. The man is walking by lake Geneva. In the US, Straub's films, almost all made with his late wife Danielle Huillet, are represented by an art gallery, a luxury boutique, where Alain Badiou comes to speak.

Monarchism and communism have a lot in common.

I shouldn't have to add any of that but Americans are stupid.

I like the film.