Tag Archives: Javier Bardem

Name calling

That is the uncertain certainty we all face. We talk about rats, we call people turncoats, but how many people are aware of the term ‘Dicky Dick’? That is what I saw evolve last night. You see, there is a stage of misinformation that I found repulsive. In this I am calling towards the Emmy’s and in particular the quote by Javier Bardem, he made mention of the IAGS.

As such I offer the video (at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BDPoQ273RmU) that will give you a considerable jolt. Whilst on the other side we get (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrUXCU6_mjI) France24 with the IAGS talking on air. So here is the setting and the first one is important as it gives the issues we tend to ‘ignore’ Who are these scholars. How many voted, how many members? In another video I saw member names like Adolf Hitler and a few more hilarious settings, like a canola Jedi. Then we get to a publication called Quillette (I have never heard of them) giving us (at https://quillette.com/2025/09/11/the-genocide-scholars-who-cant-define-genocide-iags-israel/) ‘The Genocide Scholars Who Can’t Define Genocide’ giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars (“IAGS”) recently announced that 86 percent of their members had concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. This was extremely misleading. First of all, only around 28 percent of their members voted on the resolution and a mere twenty percent of total members approved it. And this was not the only problem with the resolution. It also misrepresented the crime of genocide.” As I see it, this should wake you up and it is just another slap n the face of the media, not vetting the sources they have. It gives us the supporting setting of “Genocide is an act undertaken with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, as such. If you cannot establish a specific intent to commit this crime (such an intent is known in legal parlance as dolus specialis), you cannot establish genocide.” As well as “The IAGS resolution did not even attempt to establish such an intent, relying instead on statements made by other entities and by extrapolating from what the organisation B’Tselem has described as a “broader analytical framework.” However, legally, genocide requires a fully conclusive finding, meaning that no other explanation exists for the event or events in question other than the intent to commit the crime of genocide. This does not apply here, as there are alternative explanations for the casualties in Gaza that the IAGS fails to recognise.” And then we get to the report of France24. Can anyone tell me why Gaza’s cannot escape to Egypt? It borders Egypt on one side. As such they aren’t “boxed in” so why isn’t the press asking clarification from the government of Egypt? I am certain that at least a dozen media channels haven’t done that. Has anti-Israel grown that much in the western media?

And the Quillette article is showing us a lot more and shows the media to be at fault for ever relying on the IAGS. The article was written by Elliot Malin is apparently an attorney and policy advocate. I am using the word apparently as in this instance I am confronted with a whole heap of sources I never heard before and as such there are issues. Oh, and before you sign off on anything. When has anyone mentioned the setting of Hamas in all of this, because THEY started this. And whilst their ‘leaders’ are hiding in Qatar (were until recently, before the Israeli air force made short work of them). Now there are further escalations and no one is wondering why Qatar was keeping Hamas leaders in the first place. 

This setting has all the works of misdirection. So now the setting of a Dicky Dick. That is a legal professional who knowingly and willingly works for organized crime. As such, what do you call a person who knowingly and willingly is calling himself an expert in (for example) ‘Genocide’ whilst having no legal or military expertise in the matter? Something to consider and what do you call the media who is optionally intentionally using such sources for painting an anti-semitic image?

Another part to consider. I am not an expert (even though I have some military expertise) and this setting is turning my stomach and when people like Javier Bardem take stage to elevate these non-experts. Questions need to be asked. I am very willing to state that the intentions of Javier Bardem were good. After all the media is the bigger culprit, how big? That remains the question.

Have a great day.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

James Gunn? Nope, not here.

This all started yesterday. There were two events that got me there. The first was Colin Jost making a reference to the Man of Steal, this of course made me wonder how much Scarlett Johansson has howling with laughter on the sofa watching Colin say things Michael Che was feeding him, with the Halloween event making Colin burst out “You’re evil” being an absolute number one. The second one was something I had heard before, somehow it got back into my mindset. “Which Superheroes could be black?” It was a questions I had heard around the relaunch of the Fantastic Four. I am a traditional kind of guy, I feel uneasy watching any hero switch race. This does work both ways. As such Lucas Cage could never be caucasian, neither could Cloak from cloak and dagger. It might be me, it might be to keep things how the cartoonist designed them to be. Yet, the question remains valid. As such my mind started to ponder. And in light of the animated series I think that the Green Lantern could be black, then two more ‘heroes’ entered the frame. The first one was Ghost Rider, the second one was a lot darker and based on what some would regard a farce. You see Blacula was a weird setting and I never saw it in the cinema, I saw it much later. Yet consider two creatures with links to the occult. Which reminded me of a print I saw decades ago. A Nazi high table that was investigating the occult. What if there was a story where these (however members there were) and we reconsidered the first Indiana Jones, as well as other supernatural items and we have two movies with links to each other, but not overlapping (in the beginning). The Ghost Rider we need to drop because it is not DC, but we still have Green Lantern, Deadman and optionally Blacula. Yet, now Blacula is not some joke. How about we make that vampire dark, I mean really dark so that we consider the House on haunted Hill a weak comedy. The darkest of dark with a matching storyline. This line will not appeal to all, I get that, but a movie that appeals to all will in the end be praised by no-one. And as the story unfolds and we see more of these very dark pages we introduce a horror group into the DC fold, and I am no James Gunn, as such I am entertaining the utterly bizarre. We see in the the comics that Yellow is the Kryptonite of the Green Lantern, as such sulphur would equally do and we could get a link to the realm of Mephistopheles (he sends his regards). A set of movies that are separate enough and only in the fifth movie we start seeing connections with the stage that the fifth is less watchable unless you saw at least one of the previous four. We lose out on Constantine and Ghost Rider as Marvel was ahead of its time, but there are other avenues to tap into and even DC has its rankings and not all are of the occult (and need not be), but what happens when Green Lantern, Blacula and Deadman connect? There are all kinds of issues and all kinds of twists that could make a good storyline. The story wasn’t too bad and the idea of a African prince Mamuwalde in modern times where we still have human trafficking and slave trade could make for an interesting twist, that is beside the stage that African Shaman magic has never been explored to the degree it could have which gives us more than merely the supernatural. The nice side here is that with the ancient African sides optional sides to Egypt and Mesopotamia open up. The same could be said for the other choices in other directions. All venues that Marvel never touched on and even as they have their own stallions in the stable, there is nothing against having another stable that make a black stable look mediocre bland. This is possible, remember Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) in no country for old man? Setting the stage of evil is merely a stage that makes the person darker the more we believe it is closer to reality. If that wasn’t true we would merely giggle at the side of Hannibal the Cannibal, but we do not, even as we realise that it is mostly the actor giving it live and we have plenty of non caucasian great actors (including Asians here). So consider a massively dark role and now we get a person like Jamie Foxx to put on the vampire shroud. How dark can the story become? As an alternative we could consider Chiwetel Ejiofor or Idris Elba both great actors in their own way, as such they will give a different spin to the character, optionally really great spins. As such it is clear that I am no James Gunn, I never intended to be a copy of him, but I reckon that I see the potential of great DC heroes or anti heroes and they could all be black, as such the question “Which Superheroes could be black” is answered, I still have some ‘conservative’ feels about it, as such my imagination doesn’t take me to the Man of Steal (sorry Michael Che), but there are plenty of options in the DC Universe and dare I say the Marvel Universe as well.

Enjoy the day, Monday is almost here.

Leave a comment

Filed under movies