War Room Lounge v140:(redacted)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did he come up with the Hitler misquote though?

According to this the author claims it's from somewhere else.
(*Research suggests the screenshotted passage is from the book "Jerusalem" by Dennine Barnett, as the font in Jackson's post matches text in that book. But Barnett attributes the quote to a book by historian Robert Edwin Herzstein, "The Nazis World War II," published in July 1980.)

Edit response to your edit:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-start-wwiii/


Snopes says that longer quote you shared is faked and not in that Herzstein book. I don't know about the shorter Barnett bit if it's there or not
 
been working my way through patrice rants after someone here mentioned them re: independence day (my daaavid!)

the king kong one is pure gold
;)

The name that Jim Norton called Jeff Goldblum's character's father...dead lol. Can't repeat it here obv.
 
According to this the author claims it's from somewhere else.
(*Research suggests the screenshotted passage is from the book "Jerusalem" by Dennine Barnett, as the font in Jackson's post matches text in that book. But Barnett attributes the quote to a book by historian Robert Edwin Herzstein, "The Nazis World War II," published in July 1980.)

Edit response to your edit:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-start-wwiii/


Snopes says that longer quote you shared is faked and not in that Herzstein book. I don't know about the shorter Barnett bit if it's there or not

Yeah, weird. The book was published in September 2016 and there's an antisemitic CT site from 2012 making the same claims, as well as a clickbait site reposting it in 2015 as a "viral" story.
Someone even posted it on Tomi Lahren's twitter in June 2016.
Could be that whoever this Barnett character is had been telling the tale for a while though.
 
Ps,I read your review on "Be Water" regarding Bruce Lee's documentary.

you thought it was too "social justicey"? I saw the first half (several drinks in) wasn't so bad.

would you mind expanding on your review?

thanks.

Sure. But you can't whine about how long this post is. You asked for it :D

For background, let me state for the record that, if my AV wasn't enough of a clue, Bruce Lee is something of a specialty of mine. Even in academia, I've long been affiliated with a little sub-field called "martial arts studies" under the auspices of which, while I was finishing up my PhD in the UK, I co-organized (with my supervisor and the leading Bruce Lee scholar in academia, Paul Bowman) a conference on Bruce Lee (for which we even got Matt Polly, the author of the recent Bruce Lee biography, to be a keynote - that dude is not only cool as shit and not only has every piece of information and every speck of dirt on Bruce Lee, he started his professional life off in academia, specifically at Princeton, thinking that he'd be a philosopher, and loving Ayn Rand, but got disillusioned and just went "Fuck academia," left Princeton, and traveled to China where he spent two years at the Shaolin Temple training kung fu :eek:), after which we co-edited two special journal issues devoted to Bruce Lee. In short, I'm not just an amateur nerd, I actually study Bruce Lee in my capacity as a scholar: I'm a professional nerd :cool:

So, when I watched that documentary, I was bummed. (So was Matt Polly. Look up his Twitter feed if you want to chuckle at his Tweets while he was watching the documentary.) I was going to post something about it in the martial arts studies Facebook group, but then I got side-tracked with end-of-term university shit. It wasn't until another big martial arts studies scholar, Ben Judkins, who runs the phenomenal blog Kung Fu Tea, put up a critique of the documentary (https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2020/06/26/bruce-lee-and-the-problem-with-being-water/) that I remembered how annoying it was. That's when I posted about it, essentially expanding that initial Sherdog post.

This is what I wrote.

To start, I agree wholeheartedly that "Be Water" is a prime example of (what Paul Bowman has theorized extensively under the heading of) "mythologies of martial arts." But while [Ben's] critique foregrounds existing myths of Bruce Lee - in fact, one of the charges brought against this documentary is that it spends most of its time just retreading familiar ground, which I think is in large part a sound critique - I was actually surprised by the sense that "Be Water" was looking to take things one step further, that it represented a conscious effort to create an entirely new myth, namely, the myth of "The SJW Dragon."

In all honesty, my fondness for polemics aside, I am not even comfortable calling "Be Water" a Bruce Lee documentary. It seemed to me to lose the individual thread of Bruce Lee immediately, to the point where it would be more accurate and more appropriate to think of it as a propaganda piece detailing Hollywood prejudice which happened to feature Bruce Lee. As a massive Bruce Lee fan, though, the most shocking and affronting part was the way that "Be Water" actually went so far as to distort facts just to fashion an all-too-typical PC narrative.

1) First, they made such a big deal about Bruce's salary while working on The Green Hornet and acted like the only factor was "Hollywood is racist." To be clear, Bruce was not paid less than his co-stars on The Green Hornet SOLELY because he was not white. Now, before anyone starts furiously smashing their keyboards in order to shame me for being a racist alt-right Trump-supporting Nazi for even thinking this, please take note of the word, in caps lest anyone's political fury blind them to the nuances of my position, "SOLELY." Racism was absolutely baked in, but it wasn't the SOLE ingredient. Should we maybe also take into consideration the fact that Bruce had never before worked in Hollywood? Had the show gotten a second season, Bruce would have been in a prime position to negotiate for more money, but it would have been ridiculous for Bruce to have been making as much money out of the gate as, let alone more money than, his established co-stars, especially considering that his character as originally conceived was to play nowhere near as big a part on the show as he ended up playing thanks to Bruce's charisma and self-advocacy.

It is important to note that this is a common occurrence in television - it was back then and it still is today. It is impossible to project into the future what the shape of a show will look like over time or what audience responses to a show or even a character will be initially much less over time. But it is a credit to William Dozier and The Green Hornet staff that they were incredibly hospitable to Bruce, giving him tremendous leeway and autonomy in the production and choreographing of the fight scenes and even incorporating his character and story ideas. Again, this is some random dude nobody had ever heard of who had never worked in Hollywood before and he is choreographing all of his own action scenes and even gets an entire episode devoted to his character and his ideas. (Episode 10, "The Preying Mantis," the best episode of the show.) I can only imagine what a second season would have looked like for Bruce, both artistically and financially.

For comparison, upon joining The League as a minor character who was originally created to appear only briefly in a short arc, Jason Mantzoukas enjoyed more and more improvisational leeway and autonomy the more he worked on the show and the more the fans reacted to him, to the point where his character got so popular that he eventually got to write and star in "spinoff" episodes revolving entirely around his character.

Bruce's time on The Green Hornet was so much more than just racist business as usual, but since nuance was one of the first casualties in this shift to highly if not aggressively politicized discourse, the whole show and everything fruitful in Bruce's time on it was ignored just to make Hollywood more racist and to make The SJW Dragon into nothing but a victim of the racist Hollywood machine. (For more on The Green Hornet and Bruce's time on it, I highly recommend the incredibly comprehensive and well-researched book "The Green Hornet: A History of Radio, Motion Pictures, Comics and Television.")

2) But the segment on The Green Hornet is nothing compared to the segment on Enter the Dragon. In this portion of "Be Water," they flat-out lied. Bruce did not refuse to start production on Enter the Dragon because he was taking a principled stand as a person of color who was being exploited, or marginalized, or what have you, by the racist straight white male producers, yada yada yada. Bruce was so nervous about Enter the Dragon being his big break that he could not bring himself to start the shoot. And when he finally did show up for his first day of shooting, for his first scene - which was the quick little scene where he asks Ahna Capri for "the owner of this dart" - he had developed a nervous facial twitch that was visible on camera. It took two dozen takes just to get that simple scene done. This is a great part of the Bruce Lee story, this tremendous powerhouse of self-confidence nearly folding under the pressure but then summoning up the courage to grab the big break that all of his hard work had finally put in front of him and succeeding in becoming the crossover megastar he had dreamed for so many years of becoming. This is literally the culmination of his personal Campbellian "hero's journey," this is the self-reliant individual overcoming all the odds, jumping over all the hurdles, and achieving what he had set out to achieve by virtue of his hard work and determination. In prior documentaries, made before this super PC age and before there was any incentive or cachet in creating such an entity as The SJW Dragon, this story was discussed often, by people like Fred Weintraub, Paul Heller, Andre Morgan, Bob Wall, and John Saxon.





This is why I hate the Hayden White-esque "history is all subjective narratives, not objective facts" malarkey: It is a nonsensical ontological position that provides (to the satisfaction of its proponents if nobody else) ethical license to promulgate whatever narrative you want without having to worry about that pesky little thing we used to care about called "truth."

To be sure, if we have learned nothing else in this "post-truth" era, it is that "alternative facts" are just as valid, if not more valid, than actual facts. But I still think, perhaps anachronistically, that "Be Water" will not age well. In time, I suspect that its only interest will be as a curious sign-of-the-times oddity. In any event, I just thought that I would spend some time this weekend doubling down on some of the problems that plagued "Be Water" after reading Ben's insightful critique.

And to close this jolly rant with my biggest (and not at all political) complaint: On ESPN of all channels, I thought that we would for sure get to spend some time in the full contact karate world of the late 1960s/early 1970s, but in a documentary on the biggest sports channel in the world there was not even passing mention of Bruce's time spent in that world.

Oh, well. Bruce Lee documentaries will not be going out of style anytime soon, so here's to hoping the next one will be better. Until then, at least we still have Curse of the Dragon, A Warrior's Journey, How Bruce Lee Changed the World, I Am Bruce Lee, etc.
 
Sure. But you can't whine about how long this post is. You asked for it :D

For background, let me state for the record that, if my AV wasn't enough of a clue, Bruce Lee is something of a specialty of mine. Even in academia, I've long been affiliated with a little sub-field called "martial arts studies" under the auspices of which, while I was finishing up my PhD in the UK, I co-organized (with my supervisor and the leading Bruce Lee scholar in academia, Paul Bowman) a conference on Bruce Lee (for which we even got Matt Polly, the author of the recent Bruce Lee biography, to be a keynote - that dude is not only cool as shit and not only has every piece of information and every speck of dirt on Bruce Lee, he started his professional life off in academia, specifically at Princeton, thinking that he'd be a philosopher, and loving Ayn Rand, but got disillusioned and just went "Fuck academia," left Princeton, and traveled to China where he spent two years at the Shaolin Temple training kung fu :eek:), after which we co-edited two special journal issues devoted to Bruce Lee. In short, I'm not just an amateur nerd, I actually study Bruce Lee in my capacity as a scholar: I'm a professional nerd :cool:

So, when I watched that documentary, I was bummed. (So was Matt Polly. Look up his Twitter feed if you want to chuckle at his Tweets while he was watching the documentary.) I was going to post something about it in the martial arts studies Facebook group, but then I got side-tracked with end-of-term university shit. It wasn't until another big martial arts studies scholar, Ben Judkins, who runs the phenomenal blog Kung Fu Tea, put up a critique of the documentary (https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2020/06/26/bruce-lee-and-the-problem-with-being-water/) that I remembered how annoying it was. That's when I posted about it, essentially expanding that initial Sherdog post.

This is what I wrote.


Tl;dr.

joking...lol DAMN DUDE..you weren't kidding. thanks for the response...will need to give this a thorough reading...
 
Sure. But you can't whine about how long this post is. You asked for it :D

For background, let me state for the record that, if my AV wasn't enough of a clue, Bruce Lee is something of a specialty of mine. Even in academia, I've long been affiliated with a little sub-field called "martial arts studies" under the auspices of which, while I was finishing up my PhD in the UK, I co-organized (with my supervisor and the leading Bruce Lee scholar in academia, Paul Bowman) a conference on Bruce Lee (for which we even got Matt Polly, the author of the recent Bruce Lee biography, to be a keynote - that dude is not only cool as shit and not only has every piece of information and every speck of dirt on Bruce Lee, he started his professional life off in academia, specifically at Princeton, thinking that he'd be a philosopher, and loving Ayn Rand, but got disillusioned and just went "Fuck academia," left Princeton, and traveled to China where he spent two years at the Shaolin Temple training kung fu :eek:), after which we co-edited two special journal issues devoted to Bruce Lee. In short, I'm not just an amateur nerd, I actually study Bruce Lee in my capacity as a scholar: I'm a professional nerd :cool:

So, when I watched that documentary, I was bummed. (So was Matt Polly. Look up his Twitter feed if you want to chuckle at his Tweets while he was watching the documentary.) I was going to post something about it in the martial arts studies Facebook group, but then I got side-tracked with end-of-term university shit. It wasn't until another big martial arts studies scholar, Ben Judkins, who runs the phenomenal blog Kung Fu Tea, put up a critique of the documentary (https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2020/06/26/bruce-lee-and-the-problem-with-being-water/) that I remembered how annoying it was. That's when I posted about it, essentially expanding that initial Sherdog post.

This is what I wrote.

I've only seen Curse of the Dragon. will need to watch the others. thanks again for your very thorough response.

I need to finish watching "Be Water" ...I'lll give you my thoughts after.
 
I guarantee none of the scholars in the business of publishing the thousands upon thousands of books on Marx and communism are having to run the tracks and jump the hurdles that I'm having to run and jump. Damn it, Ayn, why couldn't you have just smiled a little more, cracked a few more jokes? Why'd you have to make so many people hate you so much?

I'm sorry, but do you really think there are more obstacles to breaking objectivism into academia than there are for Marxism? There has been literally billions of dollars poured into making Ayn Rand and objectivism a thing: so much so that, despite being universally panned by academia, she is now a staple of US high school curricula. I mean, can you imagine the outrage if Capital were being taught in high schools around the country? It shouldn't be controversial, as Marx is the most cited social scientist in world history, but it certainly would be. Marxian academics have been blackballed for decades, a trend that has only recently substantially thawed, and completely removed from political leadership while uneducated and unqualified objectivist hacks like Paul Ryan have been escorted to remarkable and undeserved heights. And it's the same for the legal profession, my profession, where affiliation with socialist causes gets you blackballed while affiliation with objectivism puts you on a fast-track to the highest legal positions even if your actual legal skills are very lacking (the effect being that the Federalist Society, which contains some 15% of law school students, places 50% of law clerks and federal judges....and we end up with actual dumb people like Clarence Thomas sitting on the country's highest court).

Personally, my thoughts on Rand are that, after giving her an honest try twice in my life, her stuff is just bad. It's reduction dressed up as profundity. And, in the case of Atlas Shrugged, it's not even remotely interesting or entertaining. Given that you're clearly a bright guy, my hunch - and this may be completely wrong - is that the value that you see in her work is more the product of your own contrarianism and curiosity than what is on the page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top