ok, so i'm going to comment on this, finally.

basically, i think the entire thing - as tends to happen on the internet - has been outrageously misunderstood. this, basically, is the reason i stopped reading my facebook feed. something gets misunderstood, and it gets shared in the wrong context. then, it gets shared a million times in the wrong context. the number of people that bother to do research or think about it is basically zero. so, the end result is not that millions of people are brought to some higher understanding, but that millions of people are badly confused. it's a great example of how the internet has amplified the fact that we're all thoughtless cretins (even while providing us with the tools to transcend it).

what i think they were trying to do was create a franchise. it was less about mcdonalds suing burger king, and more about opening up a starbucks on every corner. what they were trying to do was create a "* reacts" video for just about anything you could imagine, and have it all use the same format.

so, they have their existing reacts franchises. what they wanted to do was allow that concept to explode by allowing others to use what they actually have trademarked - their logos, their music and the other aspects of their format that make them unique. so, you'd have somebody in the north doing "inuit react", somebody in russia doing "russians react", somebody in africa doing "zulus react" & etc - all in the relevant languages, for the relevant markets, and all being fast-food type franchise spin-offs of the copyrighted burger.

there are reasons to criticize this. but, what has gone viral is just factually wrong. yet again. can somebody drop me a line when they can find something viral that isn't factually wrong?

the error was that those few seconds of the video where he talks about copyright, and which really have almost nothing to do with the actual idea expressed in the video, should have been completely edited out. not because they're horrible; because they should have known that people would be too fucking stupid to get their heads around it.

every single one of these thug barbarians is white.

it's just more proof that you can't let white people near civilization, or they'll burn it down.

so, i'm actually partly through clearing out the page. i'm going to be moving posts to an appspot site, where i can properly format them - facebook is useless, in terms of spreading information. it's still useful for concerts. and drive-by postings. but, i'm hoping all this changes.

the platform just sucks. it's the developers. it was never great, but it was workable for a while around 2012. they've removed the things that once made it usable.

for example, now you can't even tell the algorithm which posts to highlight. so, when i post things to this page, i have no control over how it's presented. that's entirely unacceptable to me. so, i'm not even sure i want to reduce the page to a cv. i'll have to see.

but, this will be my last regular post here. i've been saying this for a long time, but i'm finally actually almost cleared. the post will not be up long.

i just want to drop my perspective of the american election before i go quiet.

i've been waiting for the establishment to put down a candidate that will defeat clinton, and at this point this seems unlikely. remember: clinton is not the establishment candidate. that is why she lost in 2008 - the establishment rejected her. which is not to say she is anti-establishment, either.

stated tersely: clinton would love to be the establishment. she's spent her whole life trying to become the establishment. she happily produces establishment talking points. she takes their money, even. but, they will never let her win. they will never bring her inside.

even THEY think she's fake.

what we've seen develop is that the establishment has abandoned the democrats. well, it's been eight years. time to rotate. predictably. they're giving clinton some cash, but it's a kind of contingency plan in case things go wrong. what is more accurate is that they seem to be abandoning her. the banks are actually probably rooting for sanders - not because they want him to win, but because they see him as an easier candidate to beat. there's a lot of disinformation out there about this.

the money is firmly on the republican side. and, that is where the smart bets are.

i think it's clear that i'd be rooting for sanders. but, i'm going to go with:

rubio: 2-1
trump: 5-1
cruz: 10-1
bush: 15-1
clinton: 20-1
sanders: 100-1

that's what the money says, right now.

whoever comes out of the republican field will almost certainly win.

that's the real election.

again: i'm concluding that the fact that there has been no big money candidate sent to beat clinton means that there is no big money behind the democrats; rather, the big money is allowing sanders to openly run amok. it seems like a bankers' consensus to elect a republican.

but, like...

you gotta...

clinton is not plan B. she's, like, plan F.

if you can believe this, it seems like the clinton campaign's paid army of online social media zombies is pushing a protocols-like jewish banker theory to attack sanders as a "communist jew" pushing a zionist agenda with "jewish bankers money".

trump, it appears, does not have a monopoly on the resurrection of goebbels.