An the Oscar goes to the Scarecrow

I believe we should start talking about diversity in a different way now that it's been nine years since the #OscarsSoWhite trended. I'm not suggesting that we forget that it trended and was seen as very true that the Oscars lacked diversity for nearly seventy five years before 2003. I want to change the script, so to speak because even though Lily Gladstone did get nominated for Best Actress appearing in the Killers of the Flower Moon, we should really focus on something innate and intriguing about the actress who did win the 2024 Best Actress Award. Emma Stone appeared in the award winning movie The Help in 2011 and she was just 22 years old. Viola Davis was nominated as Best Supporting Actress in 2012 for her character Aibileen. This is what she said when asked if there were any movies she regreted. "I know Aibileen. I know Minny. They're my grandma. They're my mom. And I know that if you do a movie where the whole premise is, I want to know what it feels like to work for white people and to bring up children in 1963, I want to hear how you really feel about it. I never heard that in the course of the movie," Davis said. " To me that's interesting and it's not because she didn't win the Oscar, but because she was nominated as Best Supporting Actress in the movie that was literally called, "The Help." She was the help, but not the starring role or main actress of the story. The Main Actress of the movie that was supposed to be about the help was 22 year old Emma Stone. This is half way between then and now which is why we should start talking about award ceremonies and the general idea of Hollywood and the entertainment industry all together. When you bring Lily Gladstone to the Oscars and with her comes the Osage Nation which is great because the movie she was in took place historically on that Nation's Land, but then give Emma Stone the Oscar for Best Actress in a movie where she literally had no brain other than one of an infant, it sends a message. It sends the same message as it did back in 2012 when Viola Davis didn't win the Oscar and that's, "you can be nominated, but we'd rather pick a brainless teeny bobber girl over your ass." I mean, Margot Robbie literally made a movie about a Barbie Doll and that won an Oscar It might have been in music, but it's still an Oscar. So hears the deal. Oppenheimer is about an atom bomb maker and it got the most Oscars than any other movie. It sends the same message that we, the entertainment industry, would rather glorify a war weapon than recognize an actual war crime like what happened to the Osage Nation in Killers of the Flower Moon. Take into consideration this is a Scorcese Film with Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert DiNiro, Brendan Frasier, Jesse Plemons and John Lithgow. It even had the music of Jack White. It had just about every "Whose, who," of Native American actors. Here is a synopsis of Mollie Burkhart: the character Lily Gladstone played. "At 44 Mollie could finally spend her money as she pleased and was recognized as a fully fledged American citizen." Mollie died at age 50! 6 years as a regular person is what it amounts to. We better go back to the Barbie movie. I'm not sure the Barbie was a regular person longer than Mollie Burkhart? She might have been. I know Emma Stone was in the acting business not much longer than Burkhart was free from Americans trying to kill and rob her of the riches she inherently possessed and yet still, she couldn't get a fair shake for the actress that portrayed her in a movie about her life. Instead, they gave the Oscar to a fictional person that had their brain removed and replaced. What do you think is harder to do? Act like a person without a brain or act like a person who has to live amongst other people who have no brain? Because that's what it's probably like for Lily Gladstone to be at the Oscars. Don't get me wrong. This in no way, shape or form, reflects badly on Lily Gladstone because she literally comes from an educational background. Her mother is a teacher and she spent time (Lily) in the theater and still goes and encourages young natives to explore acting, as an artform and we need people like that in Indian Country. I just find it hard to except that this lady is literally breaking down walls and barriers for all Native People and yet Hollywood after being "ShutDown," for being unfair to the people behind the scenes that make it all possible and still they don't get that their larger than life egos are ruining Hollywood. I'm with you Lily. I know you won't talk bad about people around you, but I will.

Mericu the Bootiful

I feel like it's a bit a of a strange time to be alive right now. I like to read and gather information throughout the day to process a general direction that society is going and have an insight into the spectacle that is "self promotion," on the internet. People are sort of going in all different directions though. First, we had themes like "Occupy Wall Street," where it was the general consensus that rich people were doing bad things that were effecting the economy and the quality of life in general. Then there was the "Me To," movement. In this women were unbridaling their silence about being sexually harassed by others. Now we're in the "Pro Palestinian or Pro Israel era." Along the fringes of the bigger movements and trends in society ,you have the smaller, "Micro-aggression," actors. I call them this because in reality, they are being aggressive with the intent to hurt others. Take Kat Williams for instance. He laid out a whole entire plethora of individual actors that he felt weren't "putting in," the work and yet they achieved some success. Then "Monique," came out on the same platform which is a podcast called "Club Shay Shay," where she made accusations against Oprah. What caught my eye though is this on particular individual post by Ryan Kimble on TikTok where he say's, "They're coming for all of it." It doesn't so much bother me that a mid-forty guy uses his one chance to talk to the masses so-to-speak about revolution or lack of per-say, but the fact that a whole bunch of people get into it with him by commenting that "He's right or they're ready for war," and all that. It's like, "What are you talking about?" I imagine the last twenty years has been a bit challenging for some people. I acknowledge that not all of the technical advancements in the world are in my taste, "For the good of all," but folks who are chanting, "Civil War," appear absolutely ludicrous to me. It feels to me that they're putting their entire energy into rebelious instinct of the primal front cortext. This is where speech & emotion are controlled. It also brings up the idea to me to think, "what is the cause of the reaction?" That is where I am at with the thinking about society and the current state of people's mental capacity. In technical campaigns there is a field called pysche-operations or psy-ops for short where data has been gathered and "triggers," identified. In techical terms, it simply means catergories have been organized in such a manor that a common denominator is observed. This common denominator is labeled a trigger and it's specific word or idea that is sort of the "gateway," to a specific behavior. It's why when I decided to start describing behavior in 2024, I used the word micro-aggression, so that people would understand that the trigger is just a "release point," for aggressive behavior. It's not the reason for the behavior. In order to understand aggressive behavior, we need to first understand just plain human behavior first. The frontal cortex contains the primary motor cortex. This is where general muscular functions are controled. Things like balance and speech, also it controls voluntary movements of specific body parts. It's the center of the hormone dopamine which connects to the cerebral cortex. The frontal lobe is the largest lobe of the brain and makes up about a third of the surface area of each hemisphere. In humans, the frontal lobe reaches full maturity only after the 20 years, but it still continues to develop into the second and third decade of life. This marks the cognitive maturity associated with adulthood. It is why I point out that a man whose in his mid to late forties which is technically almost twenty years past his mature cycle "brain- wise," acting-out like an immature person is not normal. On the internet, people say, "Normalize," a certain behavior to make it acceptable, but I'm afraid that obvious things like an adult male behaving aggressively and showing signs of adolescent trauma are not normal. It's "toxic behavior," which for some reason registers high in the previous categories that I mentioned which broadens the theory of triggers. I reference trigger in the form of theory because it's not yet set firm in an established behavior trigger, but just in theory. You see the higher development of Pre-frontal cortex (PFC), is responsible for internal, purposeful mental action, commonly called reasoning or prefrontal synthesis. Before I continue, let me explain that myself I'm no genius. It's actually because of a physical disability (hearing) that I study brain function out of curiousity into how we adapt and overcome certain sensory deficiency. You see cognition first happens in the sensory area of the brain as the posterior cortex is considered the "sensory cortex". It is devoted to action of one kind or another: skeletal movement, ocular movement, speech control, and the expression of emotions. This also diminshes overtime where much research is now being devoted to aging and the disease of Alzheimers, Parkinsons and or Dementia. These things happen with age, but the most interesting part is how they happen and by what "damage," is considered detrimental. Coffey, who in 1992 indicated that the frontal lobe decreases in volume approximately 0.5–1% per year.[7] Prefrontal cortex (PFC), is responsible for internal, purposeful mental action, commonly called reasoning. "The function of the PFC involves the ability to project future consequences that result from current actions. PFC functions also include override and suppression of socially unacceptable responses as well as differentiation of tasks." So here, you have three things. Reasoning, differentiation of tasks and suppression of socially unacceptable responses. This is the mid-forties guy acting like a ten year old. He's basically saying, "The world is not going the way, I think it should. Therefore, I'm going to hold my breath until my face turns blue or things start going my way. His words are, "They're coming for everything." Which in essence, you have to consider all the things I named in the last few decades. Banks and financial institutions come to mind when he say's "They're coming." It could also mean women's empowerment about unacceptable male behavior has him at a loss. It appears that he's having a crisis which would indicate differentiation of tasks which means he's getting one thing mixed up with another. Whatever the ultimate "Trigger," is, he's having a meltdown online. I have to point out that this is not an isolated incident, but just another example of multiple males and multiple examples of behavior that are similiar in context about some "Magical privilege," that is disappearing and somehow the rest of us don't see it. The irony of the situation is that the special privilege that this person is speaking about is actually being used to increase the promotion of his complaint. He's talking about his feeling of entitlement disappearing in a new digital technical age. This causes older males to "detach," and become hostile towards anyone not his age, gender or social perspective. Now I'm not going to say he's completely insane to detect these type of isolated categories and to witness the amplification of them because that is highly visible through the differentiation in the way that diversity is amplified through digital promotion. That's a different subject, but he's definitely feeling isolated in that his particular brand or value set in life isn't celebrated. Now I don't know for a fact that the last statement is true. I just know that if it is true that this particular individual doesn't feel it or believe it to be true. See that's the thing with which is in essence "Virtual Reality," is that it isn't actual reality, it's just a reflection of percieved reality. I might be using semantics here with how every word I am using is interpreted for meaning, but the truth of the matter is that what were seeing and observing in the Digital Age lacks a certain "Down Home," feel to it and I would expect it to be like that because it's meant to be different. Apparently to this person and others who feel like this person does about their own experience with modern digital communication, they also feel left out and left behind. Now, I don't know if it's just timing or internet "Build Time," that has contributed to the fact that it has taken a couple of decades to get to the "5G," in rural areas or what? All I know is now that the "farm boy," or girl has the power of the digital age in their hands they feel everything is Disfranchisement. When considering to the social or neo-political construct of the argument, I'd have to say that I agree with them. I mean, I don't feel the same personally, but I totally understand where that's coming from. The closest idea that resembles the emotional response I'm describing is sort of like gentrification. Only here, it's happening to a person not of color and on the internet. To best describe the phenomenom, I took this text from an article about gentrification. “Gentrification is a cultural sphere to work out feelings of resentment around inequality. ... Those feelings aren’t to be discounted,” Gottlieb argues. “This is a manifestation of a long-running sense of ‘I am not welcomed in the city, I don’t have a right to the city.’ Sometimes those feelings can be worked out in the cultural terrain of gentrification, even indeed if the people moving in aren’t the proximate cause for them leaving.” There is quite a bit to unpack there if we want to compare this phenomenom to the way non- colored people feel about activity on the internet. First of all we would have to replace the idea of the person's ethnicity being culturally significant with an economic indicator. Even though nowhere in the excerpt is there a reference to color or ethnic background. Gentrification is a construct that economic class drives the underlying motivation and the economic class that drives it is primarly upper middle class educated. It's my way of dancing around the phrase "White upper middle class." Even though I don't have any problem saying the race, I don't believe it needs to be emphasized because when you say "educated," the assumption sort of connects to a race because if I had to layout statistics to which students can afford an education and which can't, it's fairly simple and straight forward. But because I'm trying to explain something that is being percieved as, "In reverse," by a person of the same race which usually includes things like, "entitlement," or "acceptance," it's a little harder to concretely state that it's one particular demographic because I'm not a part of the demographic, so I don't know. Respectfully, I don't want anyone assuming my words and my emotions because they're not me. The caveat here is that complaint is at the heart of the self identifying victim. To lend imagery and discern the actual complaint of colored people's movements digitally, I recall the "Arab Spring." The Arab Spring was a time that happened in or about 2010 to 2012 and it started in Tunisia. To simplify what it was about would be to use the slogan translated from aramaic to english, "the people want to bring down the regime." Next, I should mention, Black Lives Matter. At the core BLM is about police brutality no matter what an opponent would tell you it is. Then, as I mentioned ME to. from there I sort of included the present in Pro and gave the example that there are two sides. Keep in mind most all movements do have two sides and there isn't just one side. I believe we're at a precipice though with the latest update of where we are as a society. Especially when I'm centering the entire discussion focus on one particular example. In that example, the forties guy said, "they're coming for everything." He went onto to say, "Nancy Pelosi." To me, he's delivering the "whose they," part of the context when he say's her name. Because I'm trying to keep the entire subject on the outside of the political spectrum. I'm doint it to keep the conversation simplified. Although none of these movements are completely separate from the outside agitation of "triggers," that one particular one I'm avoiding because it's just to broad to get a point across. Let's just say that form of argument has it's place and it's a lot like the weather, depending where you live and what the circumstances are, it's different for everyone. This is about the self proclaimed identity and the complaint of one person, but I'm using it to compare and contrast it to others individuals and what their complaint is. I'm particularly focusing on the communication of social media. It's this area where everything get's highlighted in a particular stage that is interesting. It's very interesting to me because I described the framework of how that form of communication is engineered. I said with irony that the man is complaining about feeling left out on a platform that is literally designed and executed, so that his message get's promoted and shared and that is true otherwise he wouldn't be able to find so many others people with his same complaint in mind that agree with him had the circumstances been a contrast to the fact. That's the interesting part. Let me tell you why I believe it's interesting and also ironic it's because we live in a digital age where now all of the checking and double checking of society norms and guided principles of communication are at our disposal. We can read the Constitution online. We can lookup the Bill of Rights. You can go to case law and find nearly every argument in every case ever made in a country made up of decisions that were made under that framework. We know certain things. Just like the subject of gentrification, we might not know every detail and motivating factor or every outcome, but we know the underlying force and it's economic. We know that in economic circumstances certain races are more prone 0r are being effected by it. I said education because that also factors in and it's and important part of the circumstances. I also said that there are facts and evidence that connect the ability of education and tied it to a certain demographic. I never said, "It's always this way or always these people effected." So I'm keeping an open mind about it because there are exceptions. But, by bringing up the facts of what we do know to be true, is interesting because I can see the individual really believes in what he is saying. The difference is in all of the other movement examples, you often find choices or decisions that can be made in order to improve upon circumstances. Sometimes the decisions are being made by the people in the movement or their wishes and their will is being communicated, so that people in positions of authority who make those decisions can consider them. The guy's complaint is vague in that "They," are coming for "Everything." He offers no remedy to avoid it and he also only refers to one political leader who just happens to be a woman, as the point of his grievance. Let me tell you what it does when there is "Filler," in need of filling out his message. On one side, I see his point. He is feeling helpless and it represents "everything," to him. On the other side, which is people like me who just took the time to put myself in this guy's shoes, there is the idea of "tables turned." The idea is that if the table turned and I was sitting in your seat and you were sitting in mine, we'd both feel different than we do at the moment. So that table has turned apparently for this guy and he doesn't like it and also those that agree with him, instinctly consider it a war cry. The difference is that people like me and people who would agree with me have never considered violence as the answer to this circumstance. That is why I talked about the brain function. I specifically mentioned sensory cortext. I sort of rushed through the subject with abstract language, so not to lose an audience, but to gain a little insight into where I'd eventually go with it. There isn't any formula and I don't have a CAT Map to show cool highlighted areas of the brain and demonstrate my own understanding of the subject. I'm just lightly touching on it, so that in theory a reader or listener can make the connection between emotion, speech, rational judgment and other things to see that I'm not just slinging ideas off of my cuff at this discussion, but I've actually sat down and tried to formulate a discussion around what I comprehend is going on with someone else. That is the emotion of anger. I get it. I feel angry to. The action to do something. That is our brains natural function when a threat is detected. Fight or Flight. The hard part for me to comprehend is the trigger. What set this guy off like this? That's what I want to know. We hear about it all the time seems like currently. They say things like "trouble in the relationship," and "Bad time at work." Sometimes they'll dig into the person's past and find nuggets of information from old classmates and buddies from their younger days. It usually ends with and I quote, "Was radicalized online." So this guy hasn't done anything yet and I do emphasize yet. He hasn't done anything, but go onto the internet and make a vague accusation about a "They," and what, "They," are going to do. In his words "Nancy Pelosi," is involved. The last part is real interesting because let me tell you a little something that happened to Nancy Pelosi. She's like in her nineties and I don't believe I'm exaggerating. Anyway, during the Jan 6th Insurrection or as some people would have you believe, Peaceful Demonstration fighting for Democracy, this guy breaks into her office. Not this particular guy I'm discussing, but some other guy. He breaks into her office like he's going to find her there while some crazy crowd forces their way into the nation's capitol building. He breaks in and it's empty, so he sits around in her office taking pictures of himself. He sits in her chair and does some dumb stuff with random things that are in her office. Before he leaves, he jumps up on her desk. He has a bowel movement on her desk. Now think about it for a moment. On one hand, there is someone saying, "They're coming for everything!" He mentions Nancy Pelosi by name. On the other, a person get's a ticket, jumps on a plane and participates in a quote un-quote rally where he breaks into the capitol building then breaks into Nancy Pelosi's office to take a dump on her desk. In my mind I'm thinking, "where is the victimization here?" I'm trying really hard to put myself in the shoes of someone who gets away with what ever they want, but seems to be frustrated to the extent of violence because nobodies celebrating these guy's behavior. You, know? It's nearly impossible to imagine. I can't imagine it. I can't imagine doing things like that. I can't imagine getting upset because other people would get upset with me if I did some things like that. It's a disconnect. I believe it's a disconnect from reality, so I trace it all the way back through the very well and documented records of the internet and all I can say is, "That's Virtual Reality." It's like the worse case scenario Virtual Reality, but that's what it is because it's not reality - reality. Maybe I answered my own question here and have just now realized it. Artificial Intelligence if you remember, I was briefly describing setting up folders and making labels to identify things and I wasn't even describing it in detail. The question always seems to be when it comes to Ai is, "what dark side of this thing exists and how will we the people respond once we figure out what that is?" But I have another question. How about if we look at exactly what were seeing these "Average Joe's," do in reality and the amount of intelligence that they're displaying for all of us to see?" Now compare that to the unknown and think about things for awhile. Doesn't it seem like the idea in general is that the hardest people to convince to accept change are the people with the most to lose? Consider that if laws all worked in your favor and education was setup and designed specifically for you. Government favored your demographic and all financial systems or areas of access in the world were pretty much engineered with one type of person in mind than all of a sudden this new digital age started changing things. That person was forced to wait in line with everyone else for everything. The usual and acustom practices, whatever they were, were interrupted by these new designs that had wider spread advantages with the same person in mind, but the person failed to recognize it. Wouldn't you start to think it would drive some of these guys mad and they'd start displaying the type of behavior that were all witnessing online and off? It would be prety obvious and I admit it is very obvious what is happening. The weird part is this is just a blip on the radar of things. It's not always going to be this way. This is just a slight change in direction. I'm sure their is a top engineer somewhere with a whole "Crack team," on top of it working the "bugs out," as we speak. They'll stuff all of us back down under the radar soon. The designs behind these things needed to be set to Def Con 1 though before they could really see what happens when a dial is turned this way or that. The most ironic message or take away from the "They're coming for everything," guy is that "You're not losing nothing out of this deal." You just for one second felt like the rest of us and you couldn't handle it. That's the ironic part. What exactly does it take for dopamine in the man's mind to start flooding his system with "feel good," emotion? Does he need to see people's babies in cages? Are not enough children being ripped from their mother's arms. Maybe it is making a woman drive three hundred and twenty miles from her home to take care of her health, even though she was able to do it before just a few blocks away. It's interesting that an individual only feels good when basic needs are being taken away from other people, but cries if you don't endorse his toxic behavior. I didn't know that the amount of patriotic flags displayed on my truck correlated directly with my emotional maturity until I started watching these individuals online. It makes me think about Eliphas Levi who was initially pursuing an ecclesiastic career in the Catholic Church who abandoned his priesthood to become a ceremonial magician. No matter if it was his time under Napolean or some other mystic relationship with twin sisters, he eventually instrumented Tarot Cards into the magic he practiced. In the Late 1800's social upheavel and blight was in European France and "magic," as a new order - an ideaology potentially a politically superstition by which hierarchy would be articulated. People of the occult believed in socialism and through these aformentioned socialist-magnetistic dialectic interest in magic, science and religion applied methods adopted by scholars at the end of the 19th century. You might find all this talk of humbug and jugglery foolish, but in those times there were only two places to exist and that was in the church or in the scientific world. Levi found a third option and it centered him in the Yoga Sense of the word to hold a pose of prosperity. Although he didn't live past that time, his writings and methods did. The reason I'm talking about it is because people sometimes don't understand whose authority they're under. You can grind out different aspect of influence here and there, but unless you're really trained to observe by which means these behaviors are dictated, your going to miss the entire concept of their application. None of this is wasted on me. I understand the minute power of projection. I understand that for lacking a better word, these minions don't understand the assignment, so there left empty handed. This guys expressing that without understanding he is the assignment. His fury and frustration are the entire point of the exercise. It gets people riled up to the point of being unpredictable and that is the "magic," so to speak that Levi wrote about how to execute. Remember, those were socialism problems in southern France which in rebellion created the "Backlash," against aristocratic regimes. Marie Antoinette and her, "let them eat cake," is in play, only this guy is saying it's Nancy Pelosi. So for those paying attention, the prose of the memo is that The Palace of Versailles is the U.S. Capitol and the queen is to beheaded. It's an interesting concept for sure, only I don't buy the guys in the khakis with the polo shirts are the peasants. You're not supposed to pay attention to that part though or you'll miss the drama. The modern magicians are the Josh Hawley's Main Character in the book he wrote Manhood. In the book Hawley dresses down a person named Andrew Tate, but first he sets up the scene by introducing something called “Epicurean liberals.” Hawley traces all of “liberalism” to the philosopher Epicurus, who, he says, counseled people to leave religious faith behind, and to “arrange one’s life, and society, in such a way as to allow maximum choice for pursuing pleasure and personal satisfaction.” The only problem with Hawley's idea here is that he's not quoting Epicerus. Rather he's using plaigerism by lifting words from John Stuart Mill of Mill's Hedonism. "Similarly, only pain makes us worse off. Mill thinks that a person's life goes well for her just in sofar as she is happy. Mill defines “happiness” as pleasure and freedom from pain." That's the work of a "magician," to take one person's work who is discussing freedom from pain and turn it into "evil Liberal," who only wants pleasure. Least, I remind you that the same Hawley who wrote the book, "Manhood," ran from the men at the capitol. There is unlimited videos on it if you'd like to see and discern for yourself. So, what you have is 40 year old guys waiting for direction because they are the so-called peasants, "the victims," if you will and mediocre leaders like Josh Hawley who are telling them to be mad at women. Women like Nancy Pelosi. Now she wasn't the first choice because Hillary Clinton would work just fine. The only problem is Hilary isn't any where around, so Nancy Pelosi will do. Can you imagine being so divorced from reality so much so that these ladies are the Marie Antoinette of our time?